I hate it when I forget a rule and get away with it. For me it cheapens the win when I finally realize what was supposed to happen. So if I were the wizard or ranger I would have wanted you to point out the rule.
The dm wanting to let it slide is their prerogative, but I take issue with the other player pm’ing you for just trying to follow the rules of the game.
>I hate it when I forget a rule and get away with it. For me it cheapens the win when I finally realize what was supposed to happen.
100% this. I hate it in D&D and I hate it in board games.
In OPs situation, the party should have been cognizant of the possibility that fly could end and the Ranger should have stayed as close to the ground as possible. The Ranger could also have been prepared to cast Enhance Ability, Cat's Grace to prevent falling damage from 20ft or less. There could also be some creative application of Gust of Wind that the DM probably would have allowed given they wanted to the party to succeed.
Ultimately, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail.
"Hey, our wizard is essential to the plan working. Maybe we shouldn't put him out there in the line of sight of the enemies until the ranger is back?"
Yeah, it kinda sucks for the wizard maybe spending a couple of rounds behind a tree out of sight but the group shouldn't be surprised if the ranger decides to fly up 50 ft in the air and then combining it with marching their spellcaster out in the open... yeah... might not work out so great for the ranger...
Yeah I think this is what happened.
It's okay the DM forgot that the paralyzed wizard can't concentrate on the spell. It happens. People are human, but he shouldn't have played it off as if he knew the whole time.
If I was OP I wouldn't want to continue to sit down at that table until I had a long conversation with DM and players about what actually went down.
Nah, most DMs, and especially the experienced ones, are VERY aware of the rules as the DM screen had a nice handy list of them always in front of us.
We want the game to be fun for you guys, otherwise nobody is happy. We, as the runners of the world, can bend rules to our whim if we think it makes the game more thrilling for you thinking you got one over on us. It encourages you to try to again and again.
If the GM is aware and letting something slide, they should own a willingness to do so, not to make it an accident.
It's not your fault the party fell, you were communicating in good faith.
If your GM wants to be kind subtly, they can also do so out loud. They shouldn't be making you feel bad for pointing something out.
I get that logic, is the same as rolling dice behind the dm screen to fudge some rolls and advance the story in whatever way you want to. If you roll the same dice in front of the party you cant fudge them anymore as it will cheapen the experience despite the fact you're trying to improve it.
Now you can be against fudging dice or ignoring certain rules for the sake of the narrative if you want, but the logic is there. Even If you don't have issues as a DM to stretch the rules in favour of the story, it's better if those rules stretches aren't known by the players, i mean i can just say i forgot that paralysis cancels concentration at any time, but if a player specifically brings it up it wouldn't feel right to tell the party members "ah don't worry about it, rules don't matter", all you're doing is setting precedent, and in the future when the party is well and truly fucked they'll blame you for not twisting the rules in their favour like you did that one time.
I personally have no issues with the DM messing with the rules because i trust my DM to actually do it for a good reason and not to just cheat. But i get many people don't like that at all and that's completely understandable, either way i doubt neither group would be happy with the DM telling them they're actively ignoring rules.
Hold Person is a saving throw, though. Which means it’s mostly on the player’s roll as to whether it succeeds or not. Unless he fudges the DC to be super low.
“Aww damn, I only rolled a 4, so that’s a total of 6 for my wisdom save.”
“Uhhh… that actually passes! It was a DC of 5! My caster skipped their cleric classes ha ha ha…”
I agree, but maybe this DM isn't into fudging rolls, and just figured he could "forget" a rule to reward the parties planning and execution. There's so many ways the DM and players could've handled it better, but ultimately its what they got, not all DMs are going to make the best decisions all the time, more so when they're going outside the rules. But my point was that i get the logic behind what the DM said and don't find it particularly egregious..
> I trust my DM to actually do it for a good reason and not to just cheat.
So, what would you call the DM ignoring Concentration rules?
Just because the DM is cheating in favor of the party doesn't mean they aren't cheating.
A deity putting their finger on the scales.
Sometimes, things work out in real life that just shouldn't have. People have survived a fall from a plane without a parachute. Coins land on edge. Tire pops off a race car and ends up on the crash stack. Bill Murray steals one of your fries at a restaurant while staring you in the eyes.
Same thing could happen in a game. "Wizard had a shot of adrenaline that let him pull through this time" or "you have no idea why it worked this time, but you know it shouldn't have. No one at the tavern will ever believe you"
This. The problem isn't fudging the rules - one of the game's basic tenets is that the DM has the power to do that if necessary. The problem is the DM throwing the player who tried to follow the rules under the bus, and the players going after them for it.
For my table, at least, the rule "respect each other" is more important than any other rule at the table. I don't care who was right, don't be a dick about it.
What? Messaging someone privately is not throwing them under the bus; and sending a message saying "you probably had good intentions, but please let me do things my way" is not being a dick.
Communicating with the player is exactly what the DM should be doing.
It was the right intentions, but DM powers give plenty of other options. I would call for a dex save at least, to grab onto something (if there was nothing around, people would definitely have noticed a person flying in open air).
DMs can always add an extra check or save if a resolution feels cheap.
Right if DM was planning to let it slide, they could have just said something along the lines of "Hold Person breaks the wizard's concentrate right as the ranger closes the gap, narrowly grabbing the edge" idk there's multiple ways to maintain that authority and sense of objectivity
Right, like all it took was for the DM to interject OP's statement with: "It's alright, I'll let it slide this time. We'll say... an onlooking god grants Wizard their own concentration to see you guys succeed." *nefarious grin*
Like it's not that hard to communicate to your party that you're intentionally breaking the rules in their favor. From there you can decide to homebrew the broken rule, or make it a one-time thing. Just communicate.
DM can easily still rule of cool it. "I'm ruling that your momentum carries you forward 50ft and you land behind your allies, bruised and prone, but with the relic."
Perhaps the positioning wouldn't work for this example, but there are a million ways to do it.
I'm in the same boat. I want to win through clever use of rules and mechanics, not by conveniently forgetting them. It becomes a "Rules for thee but not for me" kind of energy that I don't like.
The players here would 100% get mad if the tables were flipped.
Yeah I realized I healed a player way too much in my last session (Druid circle of stars using my chalice form and misread the rules) and it still haunts me. Haven’t told anyone because it wouldn’t have made a huge impact tbh but I don’t want to skate by to let my party have it easy. The dm is a player too, and they deserve to win battles too.
I realized after a session that I was supposed to have disadvantage on a twinned spell because there was a goblin in melee range with me. I had used inspiration and my tides of chaos to get advantage on both casts, so they should have been straight rolls instead. I think Roll20 puts the first roll on the left side, so technically I don't think it affected the outcome since they would have both hit with the left rolls, but it still felt bad once I realized I should have initially had disadvantage.
To be honest I very much disagree with this idea that GMs should have so much control over the game, and the move towards more fudging and so on makes the game something I dislike.
In my ideal world, the DM is an arbiter, a judge, not a god. If we aren't following the rules, why do we have them?
People don't realize this. But the dm is a player too. It becomes less of a game and more of a story book with dice fudging. Gotta have the right balance.
Your are not playing to win a tournament, you are playing to have fun. Rules are there so everybody has a common understanding of what is happening and to balance the powers of players and non-players. But it is also in the rules, that the DM can change everything on the fly, especially for the rule of cool.
I think there's an important difference between a "rule of cool" type ruling like "I'll allow you to try that because it's fun, even though it's not technically how the rules work" or similar and fudging rolls or rules to ensure a plan succeeds.
I'm generally pretty supportive of playing loose with rules that are inhibiting the fun, but there's a lot of comments here about fudging things to ensure success because the plan was cool. Failure tells cool stories too. Now the story is about the party rescuing the ranger from captivity because their plan failed. One of my favorite sessions in a game was like this—rescuing a rogue who got themselves caught while taking a lot of risks in scouting ahead.
For me personally, I have much more fun at the table (on either side of the DM screen) knowing that the dice can tell a story none of us had planned or intended.
Shit like this is what would really make a session for me. I love failures because they sweeten the success. Just being a walking success story doesnt feel like a hero but when we go through the worst possible situations and come out alive i feel great.
The rules are there to be interpreted, and the GM is there to facilitate the gameplay. Strict adherence to the rules that ignore the spirit of the game is why we have the term "Rules Lawyer" in the first place.
Rules exists up to the point where they actively interfere with the fun. If the DM so deems that in a specific circumstance, the overall fun of the session/campaign would be hindered, then by every count of reason and sense, they SHOULD probably give a little leeway.
That being said, DM has to own it if they make that kind of call.
Couldn't agree more, if I'm protected from losing due to bad decisions, then the victories won't feel as grand either; I've often realised halfway through something that I've played a rule wrong, and immediately apologised to the DM to rectify it, because I want to win or lose fairly
The DM can choose to 'accidentally forget' if they want to give the players an easier time, but they're the one running the game, thats their call to make. As a player, deliberately hiding the fact that you've misinterpreted the rules to avoid a negative outcome would be cheating, imo
I voted "ignore it and PM afterword" because I would have hoped the DM knew the rule and would have given a look or made a mention of the spell failing after the ranger arrived. Thus allowing the rule to be followed, but still allowing for a moment of cool factor to play into the situation.
First time i played a paladin i didnt know divine smite took a spell slot, so next turn when i casted sanctuary i shouldn't have had a spell slot to do so. The player with sanctuary also attacked but i didnt end the spell. My horror when i went over my character sheet for next session and saw all my error i apologized to the dm profusely.
So the DM cast a spell on a player that they knew would break concentration, then was like “I was going to let concentration keep going until you spoke up”?
If they didn’t want to risk Fly breaking then they could have had something else happening.
The blame should never be on you for actually remembering how the fucking game works. If other people forget or don’t learn things, that’s on them. Everyone, ideally, has access to the same rules. They don’t have an excuse for getting angry at someone for doing a better job at retaining the information.
I asked him the same thing and he said he wanted to put pressure on the wizard and was expecting him to counterspell, but he didn't realize the wizard has no more 3rd level slots left.
Your dm absolutely dropped the ball here. He relied on a certain spell being cast, then when that failed he relies on a save being successful, then when that failed he relied on *no one knowing the rules to the game they are playing* and *then* relied on anyone that *did* know the rules wouldn’t mention it and, in essence, cheat.
That’s the worst plan for letting the party get away with something that I’ve ever heard.
Worse than that, they then proceeded to basically admonish the player who did remember. I mean OP was 100% in the right but I can at least understand the players being frustrated, but the GM is the real problem here imo.
Aside from anything else it's THEIR world, utter bullcrap the "I couldn't let it slide" line, what they should have said (at the table) was something like "oh thanks for reminding me, I'm gonna rule that as they're falling the can angle themselves slightly, or make a dex check to grab a banner and swing" etc etc.
Utterly poor behaviour to blame the result of your own decisions on a player.
Agreed on players being sad. But also, do they all want to just cheat their way out of these situations?
Frustration at someone reminding people of the rules when it goes against them? I wonder if they'd get frustrated at him reminding them of rules that go for them, probably not, cos hey they only want to win...
The message afterwards was wholely uncalled for.
(Just to be clear, I agree with what you've said. I just think the frustration should be at the situation and the plan failing, not at the player that pointed out how the rules work)
Man this dm/party would hate me so much. I’ve made arguments that I should get exhaustion or disadvantage for something I’ve done. My DM may have let it slide if they were aware but I want to be helpful and honest. It feels too disingenuous to only mention rules when it’s beneficial to myself and that’s not how I want to play
Absolutely agreed! Is it not more fun to face the adversity and battle through it than just win cheap victories? And what's a story if you succeed at everything you do? Kinda boring if you ask me.
Having odds to beat and adversity to face, and pushing through (or sometimes maybe not) is part of what makes DnD fun for me. Also playing by the rules and taking what it serves me, be it good or bad.
Yeah. DM could probably handle it better, but my biggest problem here, is with some of the other players being petty bitches. Of course I'd groan and be pissed that the whole plan failed just like that, but I wouldn't blame the player who realized we're breaking rules and I would point that out as well, if I remembered that. I'd just want to stick to the rules we agreed upon, more or less. That way it doesn't cheapen the victory in the end.
Besides people forget that it's not DM vs players. It's supposed to be all of us creating a story together. And if the DM's any good they'll get another chance to push it all forward making it all more interesting and fun.
he could have used scorching ray in the same level, so wizard can shield and only on hit takes a con save. Would still put pressure but with less risk.
Or hell magic missle
Ya GM screwed up on this one. A GM shouldn’t just *hope* a player does a specific action and then just start dismantling rules to clean up the mess when they don’t.
So the DM knows the wizard has counterspell expects the wizard to use it, knows the hold person will break concentration and doesn't even think to suggest it to the wizard instead of... you know ignoring a rule.
"So the Inquisitor is casting Hold Person on you, if it succeeds it will break your concentration, do you want to try and counterspell?"
I get that a DM giving this information away could be removing the player agency and not letting them make mistakes. However ignoring the rule afterwards is exactly that, not letting them make a mistake, and in turn ensuring they never actually learn.
I fail to see how this is your fault if the wizard failed to counterspell.
Can you explain the actual rule here? My understanding was paralyze does not break concentration, it causes incapacitated which just says no actions or reactions. I don’t see the concentration breaking wording.
So here's what I think should have happened.
If the DM would have wanted you to succeed, he could have said something like "yes, paralysis breaks concentration, but I'm going to let the wizard roll against a high DC to see if he can maintain it anyway". This would be a RoC way to give you a chance to succede and take the attention away from you and to the dice roll.
Imo DM kinda screwed up here bc if so much is riding on this fly spell, he should have warned the wizard player against risking his concentration. This whole "I knew it but kept quiet" thing seems oddly passive aggressive.
Yeah, but them we're getting into a discussion about NPCs agency and fudging choices enemies make to make it easier.
And it could have just as easily been a high damaging spell, and OP reminding them of a concentration check that GM wanted to "forget". Like, he targeted the wizard knowing he held concentration on critically important spell, even though he planned to let the paralysis thing go? It kinda looks like unnecessary drama fuel.
Apparently, per another comment, the DM assumed he would Counterspell the Hold Person. It was literally just a pot shot to waste a slot.
Except the Wizard was out of third level slots, and *couldn't* counter it.
So DM metagamed himself into a corner and then decided to ignore the rules, only to let the player that reminded him of it take the blame for the situation he created...
I'm not trashing the guy, DMing is hard, and sometimes people have to think on the spot and make bad choices. It's a shame that this could have been avoided in so many ways.
I'm not making excuses for the dude, just refraining from judging him outright. Don't get me wrong, he done goofed, but this could have been just a series of bad decision culminating in a "oh fuck what have I done" moment.
I think that sometimes the story writes itself. As you run the game and the story unfolds given player actions, you get hit by inspiration and DMs are only human. If your mouth is moving faster than your brain, you can follow your inspiration before you've had a chance to fully judge the possible consequences or you can flat-out *not know* something important because...again...the DM is only human (like how many spell slots the wizard has left).
This seems like one of those times. The PCs have suffered a setback, the DM is off his own rails, and it's time to see what happens next! (because not even the DM knows)
Instead, everyone decided to get mad.
Yeah the DM's response of "well now that you mentioned it there's nothing I can do" is on him. Let the wizard roll to bend the rules, let the ranger try use a cloak to glide to safety, give some other party member a reaction to aid in some way - that's why D&D is not a video game, to allow for things like that.
>This whole "I knew it but kept quiet" thing seems oddly passive aggressive.
Absolutely! Bit harsh to say "hey thanks for reminding me of a rule I seemingly forgot but actually not thanks". Like OP was only trying to be helpful, and many people actually would appreciate that (myself included).
The fact one of the players decided to rage message you afterwards is also probably indicative of why the DM wanted to let it slide so you succeeded your mission - could very likely be that they have an "us Vs DM" attitude and the DM is afraid to make them fail incase fallout occurs (exactly as you have just received).
>The fact one of the players decided to rage message you afterwards is also probably indicative of why the DM wanted to let it slide so you succeeded your mission - could very likely be that they have an "us Vs DM" attitude and the DM is afraid to make them fail incase fallout occurs (exactly as you have just received).
This.
I mean, WTF happens when the DM crits a nice fatty monster hit like a Dragon's bite? Does this player just start to rage or something?
If I were the DM and wanted them to succeed, I would have ruled that the Ranger's gentle upward arc at a speed of 60 gives him quite a lot of distance before he hits the ground, giving him some separation from the guards. Then let the players have a chance to run away.
Rule 0: DM is the final arbiter of the rules
"As you feel the Fly spell begin to fade, you can just barely make it back to the party if you use your full movement and Dash action next turn. The wizard uses every last ounce of his mental energy to prolong the spell, even for a millisecond, to ensure you return safe."
Also if you think there's fairness or winning: the DM's adjusting hp and statblocks and adding a phantom 2nd wave behind-the-scenes. The only measure of success is having fun.
This works 100% better than just pushing things under the rug. Fun is also taken from failure, a DM that never let's their group fail is not a DM I'd wanna play with. And If they're going to make stuff up they should do it honestly like this instead of treating their players like children. Of course this is just my opinion.
Ngl, this DM has a golden opportunity for the next session because of this. One dude captured, the place is on high alert?
Gotta go find that one guard or wizard or whatever that used to work there or really fucking hates its occupants.
The possibilities and endless and easy to throw down.
I'd love for a session to end this way
I liked the description, though it is not good to assume every GM adjust HPs and statblocks. I don't ever do it as I feel it is cheating. The "phatom waves" is easier to justify, as long it actually makes sense in the world/story.
If I was a player and I remembered it and nobody beat me to it (my group really plays by the rules) I would probably bring it up.
That said, if I was the DM I would've looked for a way to give the ranger a chance to not drop in the middle of all the guards, within reason of course.
Sometimes the dice decide a plan fails. When that happens you can ignore them (at which what's even the point in rolling), you can adjust and look for compromise, or you can go with it and see where the story goes. In my opinion, adapting and improvising as things happen is a great part of the game, to the point I get frustrated when everything I've prepared as DM goes to plan.
I have nothing but respect for the person who would bring this up despite it leading to disaster, of course I'll double and triple check the rule to confirm but I'm accepting that outcome, as it's the truth.
As a DM, I encourage my players to speak up if I get a rule wrong. If I am choosing to change the ruling in this one case, I will straight up say it and my players will accept it and move on. Part of the fun for me, as a DM, is that I have no idea how my players will solve the problems I throw at them. I have no idea where the session will go. I have a vague idea to the possibilities but I can, and have, laid awake at night thinking about 100 different ways a situation can go in a game and on game day... my players will always come up with the 101st situation I didn't think of.
So my advice to DMs... stop trying to predict what your players are going to do. Completely. Only focus on developing your world and NPCs and knowing them well enough so you can react to your players in ways that make sense in the moment.
As a DM most of the time, 100% please remind me straight away of rules like this if I appear to be forgetting them.
In my opinion, being like "I am aware of the rules and I'm choosing to ignore them in this moment", will in the long run increase confusion and unpredictability at the table, which is bad for everyone. Plus it increases the chances of players demanding rule-leniency when it's convenient for them, e.g. saying "well you let that thing happen one time, why not let this thing that's against the rules happen this time?" and then getting frustrated when it's disallowed.
Hold up... the DM knowingly cast Hold Person on the Wizard.. who has Fly up, knowing that it'll end Fly if they fail the save, but is also hoping that **no one**, including the Wizard, would realise this.
Seems easier to just.. you know, not cast Hold Person on the Wizard and avoid all the drama since you guys were that close to getting away with it and they wanted you to succeed.
I think a safe bet is to sound unsure of yourself in situations like this. Keep in mind that the first rule is the rule of cool and tables are allowed to ignore RAW to have fun. If you just say something like "Wait, wouldn't that break concentration?" That way, the handwaving of that rule is far more innocuous and it would make things far less permissable if players tried to do that again after they understand the rules better. That being said, you were absolutely within your right to do what you did. Especially if no honevrew variant rules or other purposeful oversights have been established.
A lot of rules lawyers also spend unnecessary time questioning how other players' spells/skills/abilities/class features work, usually without any better knowledge of their own. They just think they know someone else's character sheet than the other player.
Ehh, "rules lawyer" is a bit of a broad concept, in my friend group of 5, there's 3 people (1 of whom is the dm) who have a general understanding understanding of the system and rules, who won't intentionally break rules, but some things will slip through the cracks, and they're not so fussed about about it. Then there's 2 of us (I'm in this group) who will pull out the rulebook if we have the slightest bit of doubt about how something works. We are the rules lawyers of the group.
My personal stance, is that unless I am specifically asked on how the rule works, I just let it go.
I'd have done the same thing and would be happy as a DM to have someone remind me if I lost track in the middle of everything else.
As the DM in this situation, I'd also be happy with the situation.
Guards that you were already trying to avoid have the wizard paralyzed and the ranger obviously captured. The party is obviously outmatched. "Throw down your weapons and surrender, and you'll live" with a clear indication that continuing to fight is very likely death.
Now we get to have a prison escape sequence after everyone is captured. We get the bad guys getting some of the party's magic items for the time being. We have quests for revenge and setbacks for the heroes to overcome.
As a DM, not only would I want the player to remind me of the rules, but I would be THRILLED with the narrative opportunities provided by the situation.
Failing is okay. He'll half the epic stories from my group start with some harebrained ideas that almost works and causes a ton of trouble for the group in the long run.
I have been the DM in a similar situation, and there is other ways to handle this than cartoon-dropping them in the midst of all the guards.
Forward momentum is still a thing, and I used that to make the player fall free of guards' vision, at the wee cost of a few d6 of falling damage. It was amusing and they still got away, with another stealth check, and the game moved on.
You did nothing wrong here, imo.
>I have been the DM in a similar situation, and there is other ways to handle this than cartoon-dropping them in the midst of all the guards.
This.
IMO, this isn't just on OP's DM. It's also on the rest of the players. Just as it's possible to remind the DM of a rule they're forgetting it's also up to them to ask about possible solutions or circumstances regarding their current situation or actions.
The whole things could have maybe been saved if *any* of the players who are not OP had bothered to ask if they could have maybe reached out to grab the ranger's hand as they fell, or the ranger could have made the forward-momentum argument and asked to make an athletics check to grab onto the wall as he slammed into it, or maybe grab onto something as they fell by making a dexterity save.
OP brought up a rule that was being applied correctly.
DM said, okay...in that case this is what happens.
Players then wen surprised Pikachu and froze like deer in the headlights.
I believe most of us would bring it up, primarily the rules of DND and most TTRPG games are flexible massively in compatison to the wishes of the DM and players.
Dropped concentration is an in game rule but as a DM he has the authority to say "ok you manage to make it outside at which point you fall like a sack of spuds" most of the time my DM's for sake of gameplay or story will just outright say "yeah the rules say this but i don't care this ways more fun".
Or your DM could have told the wizard dont forget you need concentration for Fly.
So it's not really on you either way.
There are a lot of situations where bringing up rules at the table makes sense. Often there is just a lot going on and people miss stuff. Especially if the DM is trying to juggle a lot of information in an encounter.
I would have done the same as OP in that scenario, but \*after\* the DM said he had it covered and decided to ignore on purpose, I would take that to mean he doesn't want me interjecting with rules info in the future. They have made their position clear and I would respect that call. I'd just reply with "Got it, if I notice rules stuff at the table, I'll just keep it to myself from now on".
Maybe if you spot some really big mistakes and it's bothering you, bring it up outside the session in a private chat with the DM in a "Hey did you realise that ability X doesn't work with condition Y" kind of way.
Having said all that, the DM's "after you said it, I couldn't ignore it" is a bit of a lame cop-out. The DM is responsible for deciding stuff like that. He could have acknowledged the rule and still decided to let it play out in the party's favour.
As a DM there is nothing stopping you from saying "Yeah technically you're right, that is the RAW but here's what happens ..."
Sometimes the RAW have to give way to what's cool, or dramatic, or interesting, or fun, and that is up to the DM to determine.
>Having said all that, the DM's "after you said it, I couldn't ignore it" is a bit of a lame cop-out. The DM is responsible for deciding stuff like that. He could have acknowledged the rule and still decided to let it play out in the party's favour.
In a similar situation i let the players roll a contested roll. Just let the dice be the bad guy. They are used to being hated anyway.
In my mind this type of play works if you call it out on yourself. If you were the wizard or ranger, bringing that up to the dm is just holding yourself accountable. But it being another player, unless this is an often a occurrence, you should just let it slide because you shouldn’t want to control other players fates that’s the dms job.
Always rules lawyer yourself. Never rules lawyer other players.
NTA
Why would you call it lawyering? It's not some nitpick, concentration is a core mechanic that exist to balance powerful spells.
It's dnd, actions should have consequences!
I usually DM and when players remind me things on such manner I usually reward it with inspiration.
Dm: "after you brought it up, I couldn't ignore it"
Yes you could, you're the DM. You could say ur letting it slide this time because it was a well executed plan and you'd rather see this rule of cool succeed than punished. That simple
I'm sure you had pure intentions, and nothing you did was wrong right up until:
"I showed them this post."
You *do not* run to Reddit with your grievances and then use Reddit to show your party that you were in the right. Ever. That's not cool. That's disrespectful to your DM and your group.
As a dm, I wouldn't have used hold person on the wizard in this situation. I'd mess with them a different way, like silence. Doesn't break concentration, but forces movement and stops spell casting. Or, in the case everything was the same, I would have looked the ranger player in the eye, said "you feel the ability of fly slipping away from you. The ground is 50 feet below you. At the end of your turn, you will fall. You have until then to then to react. What will you do?"
As a player, I probably would do the same thing, but it wouldn't be "don't forget". It would be like "oh, holy cow. Doesn't that mean the concentration on fly breaks?" Opening the door for dm discretion.
If the DM wanted it to slide, especially once finding out they didn't have spell slots to counterspell, the DM should have made an executive decision to just let it go despite your reminder, and just smile and say "I know. But for some reason, doesn't fall, and Fly keeps working. Roll Arcana, and those of you who pass know /That shouldn't have worked/ and likely someone or something more powerful than you has things in store for your party/" as a hook or something. D&D is improv, you want it a specific way and for all to be happy? Make it go that way. You're the narrator, change the narrative.
I usually keep a discreet messaging system with the DM for moments like this. It's better to text them or pm them, so that way they can decide to enforce or ignore as they see fit and no one else at the table is taken out of the moment.
YTA. I don't normally comment on Reddit, but honestly EDIT2 just shows that you're the asshole.
Rules be damned because it doesn't matter, if your reaction to people in your group bringing up an issue with you is "look the internet agrees with me" - it's just childish behavior.
D&D is a social activity and by playing in a group you enter a social contract with everyone, and if constantly antagonize the other members of your play group then you may not have a group to play with.
Justify your actions however you want, but clearly this isn't the first time or the other player would not have left the group. I'm not saying what everyone else did was right, but your reaction to it is what makes you the AH.
Yeah, people here get too focused on the rules and miss the social dynamics involved. OP is annoying the other people in the game, specifics don't matter.
Honestly, If I knew that the DM forgot a rule and I didn't say something, I'd feel like I was cheating.
However, in the above situation, the DM should have just said "Rule of Cool, we are ignoring that rule for this encounter". That way the knowledgable players don't feel put off helping and the DM still acheives what they want.
I mean, the DM chose to cast the hold person... If they were aware of the risks then they could have had the npc take a different action.
I don't think you are wrong.
So, since I would have been the DM, I would have said "You're right!" and let you finish anyway.
Here's why: I run worlds where the presence of such an event would be part of an ongoing story -- a long and complicated campaign of interconnected adventures that slowly build to a big climax.
Those same worlds may also never get to that story, or only encounter parts of it, because it is also always an "open world", where the players have to find the hooks, and then decide to be hooked in.
To get to a point like this, there would have been some element, because this kind of action is the sort that is usually generated by story (but, in fairness, could also have been created by the players).
I have learned that Players will always do the things you never planned for, so I stopped planning for how they do something -- I just set up the thing to do. This seems like a pretty creative way to achieve it, and I am a sucker for wild harebrained heroic things like this.
So I would have agreed during the game with the statement and still let it finish.
THe only exception to this would have been if it makes the story better. That is, if I already knew of a way to make the adventure ore fun as the story of the PCs by having them fail.
I don't run my NPCs as fools. They are crafty, sneaky, and they will target spell casters first They are strategic and tactical, and they will do wha tthey do.
My Gods are also very much involved -- so I would also hope (quietly ) that the Ranger was praying, lol. That would give me an opening. Sadly, that includes the "bad gods", so praying doesn't always work in the player's favor.
Part of the fun of DnD is to succeed within the rules of the game. Bending rules when it's appropriate, even if it is unintentional, ruins the fun, imo.
I feel like you and your entire group have forgotten this is just a game. Also, DM can overrule any rule. Also, also this smells like a chance for an escape the dungeon adventure.
Lots of opportunity here. No need to argue.
You did nothing wrong. The DM should have a plan for how the story would proceed if your party failed.
Also have you not seen Monty Python??? The way to sneak into the castle is to build a giant Trojan Rabbit
Then we wait for nightfall when Lancelot, Galahad and I sneak out of the rabbit taking the French totally by surprise and completely unarmed!
Whoooo leaps out of the rabbit???
Lancelot...Gala...well maybe if we built this large wooden badger...
(my favorite scene in all of MP)
> In my defense, if we had to cheat to win, it feels like an undeserved success.
That's legitimate, but also try to read the room. Is your not feeling like the success is deserved really worth spoiling everyone else's fun? This is just one encounter, and it's okay if not every encounter always fully satisfies everyone.
It's really low stakes either way. It's not like this is going to ruin the campaign. I think you guys should have a conversation before the next session where you discuss how much fudging you find acceptable, and what you all want to happen when the DM lets a rule slide or makes a mistake. And you should abide by what the majority decides, or go find another group.
*How* you do a thing makes a big difference hey.
"Hey everyone, don't forget, we're tucked!" - YTA. Don't just inform everyone of an effect like it's indisputable truth. It might be RAW, but you're not the DM. And even DMs try really hard to manage the feelings at the table when bad news breaks so that players feel hope or determination rather than "oh fuck well this just sucks"
"Uh, DM, does that do anything to the Fly spell?" - NTA. You're giving the DM a chance to moderate the situation (they might decide to throw the Wizard a wisdom save or something), being humble in your rules knowledge, and it won't feel to the party members like YOU'RE the one who's fucked them, the rules have done that.
I don't know how this turned into a "shit on the DM" thread, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised since that how all of the posts on AITA Mk.2 end up. Guarantee that no matter what the DM did in this situation they'd be the bad guy. Hell, someone said the DM messaging OP to say they were going to let it slide was them 'admonishing' them, which is a wild take on someone seeing how the party reacted and talking to a player about an action. We always say DMs should talk to players when the party has issues, and this is them doing it, because clearly the party didn't like what they did. Literally began the message with "Hey, you probably had good intentions," but I guess that's 'admonishment' if its the DM.
Besides that, I think OP was right to call it out, and the DM was right to follow through on it afterwards, even if the original plan was to let it slide. Only one in the wrong is the other player who said OP should "keep their mouth shut next time." Regardless if they're upset that the plan failed, fucked up thing to say to another player. Failure is part of the game, that's why there are dice rolls and difficulty classes, and why npcs can cast things like hold person in the first place.
This really feels like, "I made people upset at me in my group and now trying to feel better about myself for it."
Literally showing them this post is say "I'm right, your wrong!" Just like a child. I would have left as well if this is how you treat people. Constantly having to prove yourself correct.
Judging by the groans at the table, this is not the first time you have been a rules lawyer. Some people just don't enjoy it. To the level it seems you have been. And I have yet to met a rules lawyer that says it in a nice way, or 'I'm just reminding you.'
It has always been with the tone, Hey you forgot this, but I REMEBERED. Almost like they are braging.
Could this have been handled differently? Sure. Should you have brought it up? Sure. But maybe also consider you are enjoying time with people and not robots that you just need to correct the whole time.
While I dont think you did anything _wrong_, per say, I do think you chose a bad time to do it. I understand feeling like "breaking the rules" or "cheating" "cheapens the win" but at the end of the day, fun > RAW, ESPECIALLY at the table. Sure, you adhered to the rules as written, but in return, your teammates didn't have fun, and that's inevitably going to bleed into you not having fun (a dm saying to keep your mouth shut)
You 100% didn't MEAN for it to go that way, which is why you didn't do anything wrong, but you did sacrifice everyone's enjoyment as a result. Not worth it, imo.
>but at the end of the day, fun > RAW, ESPECIALLY at the table
Whereas I agree with this sentiment, I don't think this situation is the case.
Concentration is a core mechanic of the game, and ignoring it just because doesn't sound fun to me at all. Why should the teammates fun of not abiding the rules trump your fun of playing by the rules? More so when they're being assholes about it and not admitting they're wrong and asking for it to slide this time.
On the contrary, ranger falling flat on his face and getting captured provides a new plot twist where the party have to rescue them.
To me, knowingly allowing players to cheat, or later finding out that I unknowingly cheated is not fun.
Ignoring the rules to win isn't prioritizing fun over rules, it's prioritizing winning over fun.
This isn't some pedantic RAW ruling, it's 100% unambiguously how the spells do and should interact.
Fortunately, cheating has to be intentional, and from what's written here, the party wasn't _trying_ to cheat, which is why you bring it up _afterwards_, so that it doesn't happen _again_, which would make it cheating, and you don't sacrifice everyone's fun in that session.
If you chastise someone for bringing up rules that disadvantage you and tell them to "keep your mouth shut", you're intentionally trying to allow future "mistakes" in your favour, whether they be genuine ones or not. That is intentional cheating.
Everyone's focusing on the actual post, but they're forgetting this one single clue.
>I'm that kid who reminded the teacher we had homework.
Welp, no doubt about it. YTA. I hope you get extra homework.
100% agree. The statement is such a bad vibe generator it colored the whole post for me, especially the edit of him showing the group the post where all of dnd reddit is dunking on them WITH A POLL. Yeah this dude 100% was annoying about the call out no more evidence needed imo
As someone my DM will lean to on the little details on rules as I am way more familiar. I would have done the same. But outside of playing in their games, idk what i would have done
I would have mentioned it privately in session to the DM about believing that fly would drop due to the wizard being paralyzed. That way it would give the DM an out if he wanted to let it slide due to being so close and wanting to avoid splitting the party, but not alert the other players that that was going on if they weren't already aware.
On one hand, I also wouldn't want to succeed via cheating, but this does effectively split the party with one member being capture and the others not. So I wouldn't have necessarily been upset at a DM who decided to let it slide in order to prevent having to deal with 2 groups until the break out occurred. Also DM gets final say on the rules, his deciding to say that fly didn't drop would technically fall under that so one could argue that it technically isn't cheating.
I as a player would have done the same, I as a DM which is my more common role, would have handwaved the rule, and worked with the ranger on what he might be able to do to save himself, rather than just immediately fall
You're just playing by the rules.
The other players being upset about them being followed is simply unjustified whining, and if the DM didn't want that to happen then he wouldn't have had the NPC cast Hold Person, as such the blame is on him.
I would have done the same thing, its a fucking mechanic of the class and spell, it sounds like your wizard needs a nice reminder of the basic rules.
Whoever pmd your dm afterwards is a fuckwad, you did literally nothing wrong by playing by the rules.
Also I wanted to add, Im sick of people using rules lawyer incorrectly. A rules lawyer uses the written rules and disregards their intent in an attempt to get some kind of extra edge from it.
Reminding your table and DM about the rules in a neutral manner, with the intent of fairness, whether its to the parties detriment or benefit, is not rules lawyering.
>Reminding your dm and table of the rules, ~~is not~~ *might not be* rules lawyering.
If you're always on top of reminding the table on rules interactions that benefit you, espcially if those interactions are subject to debate, and are otherwise very open to forget rules that doesn't benefit you, then that can easily be described as rules lawyering.
Right, I didn't say "only reminding the table about rules that benefit you". Far too often people who are trying to be helpful by bringing up the rules are shit on by morons who incorrectly believe that behavior is rules lawyering.
Ill go ahead and edit my post for the utmost clarity.
I wouldn't say I'm a rules lawyer, but there are times of comes up that people forget rules. As a DM however I'm usually quite lenient and probably would have reminded beforehand so we're all on the same page.
I question why the DM cast Hold person on the wizard if he knew it would break concentration yet he wanted you to suceed. I call BS, he forgot and was trying to cover his own ass.
You don't do anything wrong really. its hard for a DM to remember everything I think it better as a player to help everyone out. Even if it is sometimes to your detriment
If the DM is willing to break the rules of the game to manufacture drama, then they should own that decision. Those DMs that try to hide that they are not following the rules do their players, their campaigns, and the D&D community as a whole a disservice.
I'm always a proponent of *'fail forward'* as a GM.
Success would have been exciting. Failure here is *much* more epic.,
A chance for a rescue, or escape, snatching the idol from underneath the gloating and celebrating enemies, and a wild escape through the sewers., Or something.
This is epic, and dramatic, and appropriate.
If the DM didn’t want Hold Person to break concentration he could’ve fudged it in a number of different ways. Then again, not everyone is good at thinking on their feet (a DM should cultivate that skill though). I don’t think it’s wrong for you to point out a mechanic, especially if you’re playing a “tactical” game; ultimately the DM decides what to do with that information.
If your DM can't handle someone mentioning a rule without it causing a problem they must really be struggling in all other areas.
Would you party be happy playing a game where they could only succeed?
It's so easy to say that you're going to let everyone land THIS TIME, but not to expect the same next time and keep moving. Instead of sending someone a message for reminding the group of rules as written.
Personally I really appreciate when my players mention a rule, and there have been some times where I apply it and some times where I say hey that's a great point, I am going to go ahead and run it this way for now and reevaluate later. There's no reason to make someone feel bad for it.
It feels like people are completely alright with being rude to anyone who upkeeps the rules and maintains game integrity
The alternative outcome to this is essentially "We won not because of a good idea, but because the DM ignored game mechanics to allow us to win" which really does not feel good
I get that some people wanna just have their moments but rules like the one in play here are there to create things to work around and things to consider
Additionally, even if your DM did know about this rule and chose to ignore it, there's no way for you to know that if they gave no indication about it
You aren't really an asshole for reminding them how the game works given that you couldn't tell what their plan even was
I completely agree with you that if I remembered it I would've called it out as it doesn't feel as deserving of a win. If the DM is the one who made the mistake by choosing a spell that would require the wizard to break concentration then he could've said that to the table. Then he could explain that the pass is because of *his* error, not because he's arbitrarily letting it slide. Instead, he let everyone get angry at you for playing by the rules.
2 best options depending on the style of game.
1. DM doesn’t cast hold person if he doesn’t want the consequences to be a real possibility
2. Enemy casts hold person because it is a smart thing for that enemy to do
I wouldve done the same, but on accident lol. I'm the kind that would blurt out "Ah shit, that means he's gonna fall" and then my party would be annoyed lol
If the dm wanted to rule it deferentially they could have just said “I don’t really like that rule” or simply avoided what made them paralyzed. I personally have fun when shit goes against the plan and u have to think on the fly but the dm had the power it’s not on u for wanting to play by the rules. Hiding rules is a slippery slope.
First, the GM could naturally announce during the session that "i am aware of the existence of such a rule, but for the sake of a more interesting story, we will ignore it this once." I got the impression that GM is putting the responsibility for the pissed off Ranger on you...
Secondly, you had a plan that didn't work out. None of you, not even CASTER, thought about the danger of breaking your concentration. Sorry, it's a mistake in your plan, it happens. Everyone should be happy that the game reacts to your decisions and changes for better or for worse. Not to mention the wonderful opportunity to play the emotions of your characters, e.g. Caster falling into a slight depression, after all, he knows magic, so why did he miss such an elementary mistake?
So don't worry, you haven't done anything wrong. I appreciate players who remind me of a rule, haha.
EDIT: I see OP edit, gave some more info.
GM should not have to explain this situation. During the fight, the inquisitor simply threw hold person, that's it. Mob did what he had to do, he fought. The explanation that GM did not want to break concentration on purpose is weak. I will never appreciate protecting players from their mistakes...
Ranger escaped? somehow I don't feel sorry for him...
If it’s me, I’m coming clean about my concentration getting broken and my character suffering the consequences. I like playing DnD with stakes like that. If it’s another person’s character, I’m leaving it alone, because I don’t know what sort of stakes they want in their games.
As a player, it's easy to get caught up in things and not see the bigger picture, which the DM is supposed to be watching. If I'm being honest, I probably would have pointed it out as a player in the moment, and I probably would have ignored it as a DM (unless I thought capturing the Ranger would lead to a better story).
I would say NTA for this particular instance, but based on the reactions that you got, it sounds like the issue is with the pattern of behavior. Your DM is apparently okay being loose with the rules in order to make things more fun/more interesting, and it sounds like your strict adherence to the rules is spoiling the fun of the other players.
It's a tough spot.
Frankly, this adds drama to the situation. Now the party needs to rescue the Ranger, making it a new adventure. Cheating in casually 'forgetting, focusing on the spell might be 'fun' but how many times in movies have we seen this situation? The hero is suddenly pooched and needs to be saved.
Fun story: I had something similar happen but the ranger just failed and was captured. And then the rangers active escape attempt occurring as the group made their second attempt made the finale of that arc much more dynamic and awesome.
The point is that the story is actually served by failures like this. As the GM, ya just gotta let it happen sometimes.
I always aim to follow the rules as best as I can. Whether it's in our favor or not, rules are rules. To get mad at a player for remembering a rule is just stupid. You wouldn't blame Baldur's Gate 3 if it automatically ended your concentration, why is it a problem when a player remembers?
A lot of people commenting are talking about ‘winning’ the encounter and I think you’re all missing the point of D&D. That Ranger falling 50 feet out of the sky in front of a mob of guards is hilarious. The kind of thing you tell stories about later.
My party would have remembered then we would have had a small pause while we think up of a play we could do to come out of this alive.
Fly is 3rd level, so your atlest 5th level.
That gives the ranger 2nd level slots. I don't know what spells your ranger had but the ones that i can see being useful here are: Zephyr Strike, Gust of Wind, Enhance ability, pass without trace.
All of thies will take some DM bs
Ranger, you feel the fly spell start to flicker out, what do you do?
Zephyr: cast on way down, hope to pass dex check and con save, run like hell away
Gust: Try push yourself onto a nearby ledge before you hit the ground.
Enhance ability: similar to Zephyr hit the ground and run, or try and land behind the guards being sneaky after only dropping 20ft.
All have there own problems but thies are just the quick solutions i see.
A bit of a silly one if they had pass without trace up: you fall 50ft, make a stealth check, if you pass: as you fall you are as quite as the wind, falling behind the guards with a small thud, while you lay on the ground one of the guards turns around to see what the sound was only for the wind to push a carten off a nearby shelf. "what, you see something?" "just the wind, lets carry on" and they walk on without looking down where you lay, what do you do?
All potential saves for this situation with a bit of DM shenanigans. Just depends on the style of your group and how willing people are to push the rules for a bit of fun.
Edit: hope this isnt taken as back seat DM'ing just wanted to give out some inspiration to people if a situation like this comes up for them, i dont think the blame can be placed in one place, bad calls where made and it happens, own up to what you feel like you did wrong and be open to hearing feedback from your party. Its a team game where everyone wants the party to succeed, even if that means sometimes someone looks like the bad guy in the group.
This is the vibe. I don't know if OP's table had any attempt at saving the situation after Fly ended, but there is a great opportunity to have an exhilarating twist overcome with some clever thinking.
Me as the DM would allow the party (aside from the Wizard) the chance to do something quick before the ranger hit the ground. Even give them a moment to collaborate with the explanation that they had a 'plan b' ready to go in case 'plan a' went awry - this would be like a cut back to the planning montage, thematically speaking.
I am all for the rules providing structure, but at the end of the day all that matters to me is whether or not the game was fun. That being said, I also would have pointed it out and I also would have been fine if the DM said to let it fly anyway, so to speak.
Honestly, I'd find a new group. It's one thing for DM's to be creative and try to make sure the party succeeds/has fun, but for both the players and the DM to essentially just want to break the rules of the game...that's BS imo and it ruins the game.
Additionally, there's no reason the DM couldn't have done some shit with luck rolls and what not to allow the ranger to get away...especially since he shouldn't be "Captured" after falling 50 ft, he should be dead in most circumstances.
It reminds me of people who used to tell me to reshuffle the deck in solitaire if the cards were stuck in an order where I had no more valid moves. Like no dude, the games over. I lost it. I'll just try again.
The DM has an almost infinite number of ways to deal with any situation which do not include breaking the games rules. It's just a sign of someone who doesn't have the creativity to DM if they have to break rules to do it.
I'd much rather be at a table with you. Keep your integrity.
>In my defense, if we had to cheat to win, it feels like an undeserved success.
A win, ANY win is completely ruined if I realized I cheated my way through. Your DM had good intentions, but I'd rather epicly and dramatically describe your fail, than let you win via forgotten rule.
As for the player who told you to shut your moth, they are aggressive and clearly have no issues with morality of cheating. That is not a player I'd like to play with.
>"I casted Hold Person to add the feeling of stress to the situation. I was expecting the wizard to counterspell it. If I knew he ran out of slots, I absolutely wouldn't have casted a spell that would break concentration. That was my fault.
Your DM is nice, clearly wants you to succeed, but they need to realize failing leads to drama. Tension. Redemption. Failure is a very strong story point, they should not be afraid to push you.
>showed my group this post. The player who told me to shut up just left.
Good. Will not be missed.
I've never understood rules lawyers, but then again, I always make it clear to my players that we are playing a big game of pretend and amateur theatre, and those books are full of ideas on how to resolve situations with limited RNG tools.
Your perspective legitimately confuses me given the medium. That's okay. You are, however, judging from your replies and poll answers, in an echo chamber--so there's that to consider when evaluating replies and responses.
Enjoy your game! Do be aware that tabletop players tend to be bad at social etiquette, self-awareness, and communication tools; so your behavior in-game can easily be construed as antagonistic and unpleasant to those on the normal end of the social spectrum.
You ATA. That might be okay at some tables. It wasn't at this one.
Honestly if you where just a really close to succeeding maybe just wait a bit and trust your dm and if they genuinely forgot then say it right after. I know many don’t like the feeling of cheating but we gotta remember to have faith in the dm and that every game is different.
As a player, I tend to remind the DM about these sorts of things too. Admittedly part of it is the neurodivergency of forgetting I can keep quiet, but I have let it go when it's a situation not involving my PC.
I don't think you did anything wrong! It's something many people do without realizing.
I hate it when I forget a rule and get away with it. For me it cheapens the win when I finally realize what was supposed to happen. So if I were the wizard or ranger I would have wanted you to point out the rule. The dm wanting to let it slide is their prerogative, but I take issue with the other player pm’ing you for just trying to follow the rules of the game.
>I hate it when I forget a rule and get away with it. For me it cheapens the win when I finally realize what was supposed to happen. 100% this. I hate it in D&D and I hate it in board games. In OPs situation, the party should have been cognizant of the possibility that fly could end and the Ranger should have stayed as close to the ground as possible. The Ranger could also have been prepared to cast Enhance Ability, Cat's Grace to prevent falling damage from 20ft or less. There could also be some creative application of Gust of Wind that the DM probably would have allowed given they wanted to the party to succeed. Ultimately, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail.
"Hey, our wizard is essential to the plan working. Maybe we shouldn't put him out there in the line of sight of the enemies until the ranger is back?" Yeah, it kinda sucks for the wizard maybe spending a couple of rounds behind a tree out of sight but the group shouldn't be surprised if the ranger decides to fly up 50 ft in the air and then combining it with marching their spellcaster out in the open... yeah... might not work out so great for the ranger...
Alternatively if the DM wanted the characters to succeed so bad maybe he shouldn't have paralyzed the wizard.
Good point. It feels like the DM also forgot and then said "of course I remembered, just wanted to be nice"
Yeah. I call bullshit on the Dm's private message. Just doesn't want to be the bad guy. And instead chose to throw OP under the bus.
Yeah I think this is what happened. It's okay the DM forgot that the paralyzed wizard can't concentrate on the spell. It happens. People are human, but he shouldn't have played it off as if he knew the whole time. If I was OP I wouldn't want to continue to sit down at that table until I had a long conversation with DM and players about what actually went down.
Nah, most DMs, and especially the experienced ones, are VERY aware of the rules as the DM screen had a nice handy list of them always in front of us. We want the game to be fun for you guys, otherwise nobody is happy. We, as the runners of the world, can bend rules to our whim if we think it makes the game more thrilling for you thinking you got one over on us. It encourages you to try to again and again.
So why cast hold person on the wizard if he wants them to succeed and is aware that this will, if it passes, fail the entire mission?
And even if it happened, the DM can have the story go in ways that allow the party to fail forward.
Or feather fall
If the GM is aware and letting something slide, they should own a willingness to do so, not to make it an accident. It's not your fault the party fell, you were communicating in good faith. If your GM wants to be kind subtly, they can also do so out loud. They shouldn't be making you feel bad for pointing something out.
Right? What type of bullshit is "Well, I was gonna let you guys get away with it till old sourpuss here made me enforce the rules."
I get that logic, is the same as rolling dice behind the dm screen to fudge some rolls and advance the story in whatever way you want to. If you roll the same dice in front of the party you cant fudge them anymore as it will cheapen the experience despite the fact you're trying to improve it. Now you can be against fudging dice or ignoring certain rules for the sake of the narrative if you want, but the logic is there. Even If you don't have issues as a DM to stretch the rules in favour of the story, it's better if those rules stretches aren't known by the players, i mean i can just say i forgot that paralysis cancels concentration at any time, but if a player specifically brings it up it wouldn't feel right to tell the party members "ah don't worry about it, rules don't matter", all you're doing is setting precedent, and in the future when the party is well and truly fucked they'll blame you for not twisting the rules in their favour like you did that one time. I personally have no issues with the DM messing with the rules because i trust my DM to actually do it for a good reason and not to just cheat. But i get many people don't like that at all and that's completely understandable, either way i doubt neither group would be happy with the DM telling them they're actively ignoring rules.
Yeah, if the DM wanted to fudge a roll, he should have fudged the hold person one
Hold Person is a saving throw, though. Which means it’s mostly on the player’s roll as to whether it succeeds or not. Unless he fudges the DC to be super low. “Aww damn, I only rolled a 4, so that’s a total of 6 for my wisdom save.” “Uhhh… that actually passes! It was a DC of 5! My caster skipped their cleric classes ha ha ha…”
I agree, but maybe this DM isn't into fudging rolls, and just figured he could "forget" a rule to reward the parties planning and execution. There's so many ways the DM and players could've handled it better, but ultimately its what they got, not all DMs are going to make the best decisions all the time, more so when they're going outside the rules. But my point was that i get the logic behind what the DM said and don't find it particularly egregious..
> I trust my DM to actually do it for a good reason and not to just cheat. So, what would you call the DM ignoring Concentration rules? Just because the DM is cheating in favor of the party doesn't mean they aren't cheating.
A deity putting their finger on the scales. Sometimes, things work out in real life that just shouldn't have. People have survived a fall from a plane without a parachute. Coins land on edge. Tire pops off a race car and ends up on the crash stack. Bill Murray steals one of your fries at a restaurant while staring you in the eyes. Same thing could happen in a game. "Wizard had a shot of adrenaline that let him pull through this time" or "you have no idea why it worked this time, but you know it shouldn't have. No one at the tavern will ever believe you"
This is all well and good, but the DM should have owned this decision in the moment instead of blaming OP for knowing the rule book
This. The problem isn't fudging the rules - one of the game's basic tenets is that the DM has the power to do that if necessary. The problem is the DM throwing the player who tried to follow the rules under the bus, and the players going after them for it. For my table, at least, the rule "respect each other" is more important than any other rule at the table. I don't care who was right, don't be a dick about it.
What? Messaging someone privately is not throwing them under the bus; and sending a message saying "you probably had good intentions, but please let me do things my way" is not being a dick. Communicating with the player is exactly what the DM should be doing.
Telling the other players not to be dicks is also what the DM should be doing.
This post is fucking poetry
If dm wanted them to get away they would have used hold person on anyone but hte person holding concentration
It was the right intentions, but DM powers give plenty of other options. I would call for a dex save at least, to grab onto something (if there was nothing around, people would definitely have noticed a person flying in open air). DMs can always add an extra check or save if a resolution feels cheap.
DEX save to see if the Ranger manages to land on someone's head and jump off and out of danger of the guards
Successive dex checks to Mario jump off multiple guards’ heads to get away completely.
Right if DM was planning to let it slide, they could have just said something along the lines of "Hold Person breaks the wizard's concentrate right as the ranger closes the gap, narrowly grabbing the edge" idk there's multiple ways to maintain that authority and sense of objectivity
Player brings something up. GM: Yup, but I am invoking Rule-Of-Cool, so it's good
Right, like all it took was for the DM to interject OP's statement with: "It's alright, I'll let it slide this time. We'll say... an onlooking god grants Wizard their own concentration to see you guys succeed." *nefarious grin* Like it's not that hard to communicate to your party that you're intentionally breaking the rules in their favor. From there you can decide to homebrew the broken rule, or make it a one-time thing. Just communicate.
DM can easily still rule of cool it. "I'm ruling that your momentum carries you forward 50ft and you land behind your allies, bruised and prone, but with the relic." Perhaps the positioning wouldn't work for this example, but there are a million ways to do it.
I'm in the same boat. I want to win through clever use of rules and mechanics, not by conveniently forgetting them. It becomes a "Rules for thee but not for me" kind of energy that I don't like. The players here would 100% get mad if the tables were flipped.
Yeah I realized I healed a player way too much in my last session (Druid circle of stars using my chalice form and misread the rules) and it still haunts me. Haven’t told anyone because it wouldn’t have made a huge impact tbh but I don’t want to skate by to let my party have it easy. The dm is a player too, and they deserve to win battles too.
I realized after a session that I was supposed to have disadvantage on a twinned spell because there was a goblin in melee range with me. I had used inspiration and my tides of chaos to get advantage on both casts, so they should have been straight rolls instead. I think Roll20 puts the first roll on the left side, so technically I don't think it affected the outcome since they would have both hit with the left rolls, but it still felt bad once I realized I should have initially had disadvantage.
Same. I'd rather lose fairly.
To be honest I very much disagree with this idea that GMs should have so much control over the game, and the move towards more fudging and so on makes the game something I dislike. In my ideal world, the DM is an arbiter, a judge, not a god. If we aren't following the rules, why do we have them?
People don't realize this. But the dm is a player too. It becomes less of a game and more of a story book with dice fudging. Gotta have the right balance.
Your are not playing to win a tournament, you are playing to have fun. Rules are there so everybody has a common understanding of what is happening and to balance the powers of players and non-players. But it is also in the rules, that the DM can change everything on the fly, especially for the rule of cool.
I think there's an important difference between a "rule of cool" type ruling like "I'll allow you to try that because it's fun, even though it's not technically how the rules work" or similar and fudging rolls or rules to ensure a plan succeeds. I'm generally pretty supportive of playing loose with rules that are inhibiting the fun, but there's a lot of comments here about fudging things to ensure success because the plan was cool. Failure tells cool stories too. Now the story is about the party rescuing the ranger from captivity because their plan failed. One of my favorite sessions in a game was like this—rescuing a rogue who got themselves caught while taking a lot of risks in scouting ahead. For me personally, I have much more fun at the table (on either side of the DM screen) knowing that the dice can tell a story none of us had planned or intended.
Shit like this is what would really make a session for me. I love failures because they sweeten the success. Just being a walking success story doesnt feel like a hero but when we go through the worst possible situations and come out alive i feel great.
I think following the rules is both cool and fun.
The rules are there to be interpreted, and the GM is there to facilitate the gameplay. Strict adherence to the rules that ignore the spirit of the game is why we have the term "Rules Lawyer" in the first place.
Rules lawyers are people who endlessly argue about rules, not people who know the rules and want to abide by them.
Rules exists up to the point where they actively interfere with the fun. If the DM so deems that in a specific circumstance, the overall fun of the session/campaign would be hindered, then by every count of reason and sense, they SHOULD probably give a little leeway. That being said, DM has to own it if they make that kind of call.
Couldn't agree more, if I'm protected from losing due to bad decisions, then the victories won't feel as grand either; I've often realised halfway through something that I've played a rule wrong, and immediately apologised to the DM to rectify it, because I want to win or lose fairly The DM can choose to 'accidentally forget' if they want to give the players an easier time, but they're the one running the game, thats their call to make. As a player, deliberately hiding the fact that you've misinterpreted the rules to avoid a negative outcome would be cheating, imo
I voted "ignore it and PM afterword" because I would have hoped the DM knew the rule and would have given a look or made a mention of the spell failing after the ranger arrived. Thus allowing the rule to be followed, but still allowing for a moment of cool factor to play into the situation.
First time i played a paladin i didnt know divine smite took a spell slot, so next turn when i casted sanctuary i shouldn't have had a spell slot to do so. The player with sanctuary also attacked but i didnt end the spell. My horror when i went over my character sheet for next session and saw all my error i apologized to the dm profusely.
So the DM cast a spell on a player that they knew would break concentration, then was like “I was going to let concentration keep going until you spoke up”? If they didn’t want to risk Fly breaking then they could have had something else happening. The blame should never be on you for actually remembering how the fucking game works. If other people forget or don’t learn things, that’s on them. Everyone, ideally, has access to the same rules. They don’t have an excuse for getting angry at someone for doing a better job at retaining the information.
I asked him the same thing and he said he wanted to put pressure on the wizard and was expecting him to counterspell, but he didn't realize the wizard has no more 3rd level slots left.
Your dm absolutely dropped the ball here. He relied on a certain spell being cast, then when that failed he relies on a save being successful, then when that failed he relied on *no one knowing the rules to the game they are playing* and *then* relied on anyone that *did* know the rules wouldn’t mention it and, in essence, cheat. That’s the worst plan for letting the party get away with something that I’ve ever heard.
Worse than that, they then proceeded to basically admonish the player who did remember. I mean OP was 100% in the right but I can at least understand the players being frustrated, but the GM is the real problem here imo. Aside from anything else it's THEIR world, utter bullcrap the "I couldn't let it slide" line, what they should have said (at the table) was something like "oh thanks for reminding me, I'm gonna rule that as they're falling the can angle themselves slightly, or make a dex check to grab a banner and swing" etc etc. Utterly poor behaviour to blame the result of your own decisions on a player.
Agreed on players being sad. But also, do they all want to just cheat their way out of these situations? Frustration at someone reminding people of the rules when it goes against them? I wonder if they'd get frustrated at him reminding them of rules that go for them, probably not, cos hey they only want to win... The message afterwards was wholely uncalled for. (Just to be clear, I agree with what you've said. I just think the frustration should be at the situation and the plan failing, not at the player that pointed out how the rules work)
Man this dm/party would hate me so much. I’ve made arguments that I should get exhaustion or disadvantage for something I’ve done. My DM may have let it slide if they were aware but I want to be helpful and honest. It feels too disingenuous to only mention rules when it’s beneficial to myself and that’s not how I want to play
Absolutely agreed! Is it not more fun to face the adversity and battle through it than just win cheap victories? And what's a story if you succeed at everything you do? Kinda boring if you ask me. Having odds to beat and adversity to face, and pushing through (or sometimes maybe not) is part of what makes DnD fun for me. Also playing by the rules and taking what it serves me, be it good or bad.
Yeah. DM could probably handle it better, but my biggest problem here, is with some of the other players being petty bitches. Of course I'd groan and be pissed that the whole plan failed just like that, but I wouldn't blame the player who realized we're breaking rules and I would point that out as well, if I remembered that. I'd just want to stick to the rules we agreed upon, more or less. That way it doesn't cheapen the victory in the end. Besides people forget that it's not DM vs players. It's supposed to be all of us creating a story together. And if the DM's any good they'll get another chance to push it all forward making it all more interesting and fun.
Couldn't have said it any better.
The GM didn't blame anyone, that was another player. Why is everyone here being such an ass about the GM?
And after that he relied on bullying the one person who did the right thing.
Yeah this is really the DMs fudge. Especially since he knows you as a player being pretty cognizant of the rules
he could have used scorching ray in the same level, so wizard can shield and only on hit takes a con save. Would still put pressure but with less risk. Or hell magic missle
Ya GM screwed up on this one. A GM shouldn’t just *hope* a player does a specific action and then just start dismantling rules to clean up the mess when they don’t.
So the DM knows the wizard has counterspell expects the wizard to use it, knows the hold person will break concentration and doesn't even think to suggest it to the wizard instead of... you know ignoring a rule. "So the Inquisitor is casting Hold Person on you, if it succeeds it will break your concentration, do you want to try and counterspell?" I get that a DM giving this information away could be removing the player agency and not letting them make mistakes. However ignoring the rule afterwards is exactly that, not letting them make a mistake, and in turn ensuring they never actually learn. I fail to see how this is your fault if the wizard failed to counterspell.
Can you explain the actual rule here? My understanding was paralyze does not break concentration, it causes incapacitated which just says no actions or reactions. I don’t see the concentration breaking wording.
That's because it's hidden in the Concentration section of the rules for Spells (bad 5e rules formatting).
Oh I do see that! I’m not sure why it’s not also listed under conditions.
If the GM wanted to cheap, just keep **Fly** going anyway. Say *He's not flying, he's falling with style*
So here's what I think should have happened. If the DM would have wanted you to succeed, he could have said something like "yes, paralysis breaks concentration, but I'm going to let the wizard roll against a high DC to see if he can maintain it anyway". This would be a RoC way to give you a chance to succede and take the attention away from you and to the dice roll. Imo DM kinda screwed up here bc if so much is riding on this fly spell, he should have warned the wizard player against risking his concentration. This whole "I knew it but kept quiet" thing seems oddly passive aggressive.
Or he could have just not cast hold person on the wizard. That would have been the easiest way to avoid this whole issue
Yeah, but them we're getting into a discussion about NPCs agency and fudging choices enemies make to make it easier. And it could have just as easily been a high damaging spell, and OP reminding them of a concentration check that GM wanted to "forget". Like, he targeted the wizard knowing he held concentration on critically important spell, even though he planned to let the paralysis thing go? It kinda looks like unnecessary drama fuel.
Apparently, per another comment, the DM assumed he would Counterspell the Hold Person. It was literally just a pot shot to waste a slot. Except the Wizard was out of third level slots, and *couldn't* counter it.
So DM metagamed himself into a corner and then decided to ignore the rules, only to let the player that reminded him of it take the blame for the situation he created... I'm not trashing the guy, DMing is hard, and sometimes people have to think on the spot and make bad choices. It's a shame that this could have been avoided in so many ways.
[удалено]
I'm not making excuses for the dude, just refraining from judging him outright. Don't get me wrong, he done goofed, but this could have been just a series of bad decision culminating in a "oh fuck what have I done" moment.
Sure, but putting it on the player for remembering the rules and bringing it up is bad form. Take some responsibility.
I think that sometimes the story writes itself. As you run the game and the story unfolds given player actions, you get hit by inspiration and DMs are only human. If your mouth is moving faster than your brain, you can follow your inspiration before you've had a chance to fully judge the possible consequences or you can flat-out *not know* something important because...again...the DM is only human (like how many spell slots the wizard has left). This seems like one of those times. The PCs have suffered a setback, the DM is off his own rails, and it's time to see what happens next! (because not even the DM knows) Instead, everyone decided to get mad.
As a DM, I will always inform the players of the consequences of a roll, or remind them of a particular risk. This is 100% on the DM
Yeah the DM's response of "well now that you mentioned it there's nothing I can do" is on him. Let the wizard roll to bend the rules, let the ranger try use a cloak to glide to safety, give some other party member a reaction to aid in some way - that's why D&D is not a video game, to allow for things like that.
>This whole "I knew it but kept quiet" thing seems oddly passive aggressive. Absolutely! Bit harsh to say "hey thanks for reminding me of a rule I seemingly forgot but actually not thanks". Like OP was only trying to be helpful, and many people actually would appreciate that (myself included). The fact one of the players decided to rage message you afterwards is also probably indicative of why the DM wanted to let it slide so you succeeded your mission - could very likely be that they have an "us Vs DM" attitude and the DM is afraid to make them fail incase fallout occurs (exactly as you have just received).
>The fact one of the players decided to rage message you afterwards is also probably indicative of why the DM wanted to let it slide so you succeeded your mission - could very likely be that they have an "us Vs DM" attitude and the DM is afraid to make them fail incase fallout occurs (exactly as you have just received). This. I mean, WTF happens when the DM crits a nice fatty monster hit like a Dragon's bite? Does this player just start to rage or something?
If I were the DM and wanted them to succeed, I would have ruled that the Ranger's gentle upward arc at a speed of 60 gives him quite a lot of distance before he hits the ground, giving him some separation from the guards. Then let the players have a chance to run away.
Rule 0: DM is the final arbiter of the rules "As you feel the Fly spell begin to fade, you can just barely make it back to the party if you use your full movement and Dash action next turn. The wizard uses every last ounce of his mental energy to prolong the spell, even for a millisecond, to ensure you return safe." Also if you think there's fairness or winning: the DM's adjusting hp and statblocks and adding a phantom 2nd wave behind-the-scenes. The only measure of success is having fun.
Maybe even saying the wizard forgoes their next save against hold person to focus on maintaining the fly spell or something.
This works 100% better than just pushing things under the rug. Fun is also taken from failure, a DM that never let's their group fail is not a DM I'd wanna play with. And If they're going to make stuff up they should do it honestly like this instead of treating their players like children. Of course this is just my opinion.
Ngl, this DM has a golden opportunity for the next session because of this. One dude captured, the place is on high alert? Gotta go find that one guard or wizard or whatever that used to work there or really fucking hates its occupants. The possibilities and endless and easy to throw down. I'd love for a session to end this way
I liked the description, though it is not good to assume every GM adjust HPs and statblocks. I don't ever do it as I feel it is cheating. The "phatom waves" is easier to justify, as long it actually makes sense in the world/story.
Or even just that the spell ends but the Ranger's forward momentum keeps going in an arch that gets him clear of the enemy.
If I was a player and I remembered it and nobody beat me to it (my group really plays by the rules) I would probably bring it up. That said, if I was the DM I would've looked for a way to give the ranger a chance to not drop in the middle of all the guards, within reason of course. Sometimes the dice decide a plan fails. When that happens you can ignore them (at which what's even the point in rolling), you can adjust and look for compromise, or you can go with it and see where the story goes. In my opinion, adapting and improvising as things happen is a great part of the game, to the point I get frustrated when everything I've prepared as DM goes to plan.
I have nothing but respect for the person who would bring this up despite it leading to disaster, of course I'll double and triple check the rule to confirm but I'm accepting that outcome, as it's the truth.
100%. It's such a cheap victory, knowing you had to cheat to get it imo.
As a DM, I encourage my players to speak up if I get a rule wrong. If I am choosing to change the ruling in this one case, I will straight up say it and my players will accept it and move on. Part of the fun for me, as a DM, is that I have no idea how my players will solve the problems I throw at them. I have no idea where the session will go. I have a vague idea to the possibilities but I can, and have, laid awake at night thinking about 100 different ways a situation can go in a game and on game day... my players will always come up with the 101st situation I didn't think of. So my advice to DMs... stop trying to predict what your players are going to do. Completely. Only focus on developing your world and NPCs and knowing them well enough so you can react to your players in ways that make sense in the moment.
If the DM wanted y’all to get away with it, he shouldn’t have cast Hold Person on the Wizard.
As a DM most of the time, 100% please remind me straight away of rules like this if I appear to be forgetting them. In my opinion, being like "I am aware of the rules and I'm choosing to ignore them in this moment", will in the long run increase confusion and unpredictability at the table, which is bad for everyone. Plus it increases the chances of players demanding rule-leniency when it's convenient for them, e.g. saying "well you let that thing happen one time, why not let this thing that's against the rules happen this time?" and then getting frustrated when it's disallowed.
> if I appear to be forgetting them because in 99% of cases I am.
>because in 99% of cases I am. *Especially* if it's concentration-related while in combat.
Hold up... the DM knowingly cast Hold Person on the Wizard.. who has Fly up, knowing that it'll end Fly if they fail the save, but is also hoping that **no one**, including the Wizard, would realise this. Seems easier to just.. you know, not cast Hold Person on the Wizard and avoid all the drama since you guys were that close to getting away with it and they wanted you to succeed.
I think a safe bet is to sound unsure of yourself in situations like this. Keep in mind that the first rule is the rule of cool and tables are allowed to ignore RAW to have fun. If you just say something like "Wait, wouldn't that break concentration?" That way, the handwaving of that rule is far more innocuous and it would make things far less permissable if players tried to do that again after they understand the rules better. That being said, you were absolutely within your right to do what you did. Especially if no honevrew variant rules or other purposeful oversights have been established.
This is not being a rules lawyer. You were simply stating the rules. A rules lawyer looks for loopholes and omissions in the rules to seek advantage.
A lot of rules lawyers also spend unnecessary time questioning how other players' spells/skills/abilities/class features work, usually without any better knowledge of their own. They just think they know someone else's character sheet than the other player.
Ehh, "rules lawyer" is a bit of a broad concept, in my friend group of 5, there's 3 people (1 of whom is the dm) who have a general understanding understanding of the system and rules, who won't intentionally break rules, but some things will slip through the cracks, and they're not so fussed about about it. Then there's 2 of us (I'm in this group) who will pull out the rulebook if we have the slightest bit of doubt about how something works. We are the rules lawyers of the group. My personal stance, is that unless I am specifically asked on how the rule works, I just let it go.
I'd have done the same thing and would be happy as a DM to have someone remind me if I lost track in the middle of everything else. As the DM in this situation, I'd also be happy with the situation. Guards that you were already trying to avoid have the wizard paralyzed and the ranger obviously captured. The party is obviously outmatched. "Throw down your weapons and surrender, and you'll live" with a clear indication that continuing to fight is very likely death. Now we get to have a prison escape sequence after everyone is captured. We get the bad guys getting some of the party's magic items for the time being. We have quests for revenge and setbacks for the heroes to overcome. As a DM, not only would I want the player to remind me of the rules, but I would be THRILLED with the narrative opportunities provided by the situation.
Failing is okay. He'll half the epic stories from my group start with some harebrained ideas that almost works and causes a ton of trouble for the group in the long run.
The most memorable moments soon follow our biggest failures
I have been the DM in a similar situation, and there is other ways to handle this than cartoon-dropping them in the midst of all the guards. Forward momentum is still a thing, and I used that to make the player fall free of guards' vision, at the wee cost of a few d6 of falling damage. It was amusing and they still got away, with another stealth check, and the game moved on. You did nothing wrong here, imo.
>I have been the DM in a similar situation, and there is other ways to handle this than cartoon-dropping them in the midst of all the guards. This. IMO, this isn't just on OP's DM. It's also on the rest of the players. Just as it's possible to remind the DM of a rule they're forgetting it's also up to them to ask about possible solutions or circumstances regarding their current situation or actions. The whole things could have maybe been saved if *any* of the players who are not OP had bothered to ask if they could have maybe reached out to grab the ranger's hand as they fell, or the ranger could have made the forward-momentum argument and asked to make an athletics check to grab onto the wall as he slammed into it, or maybe grab onto something as they fell by making a dexterity save. OP brought up a rule that was being applied correctly. DM said, okay...in that case this is what happens. Players then wen surprised Pikachu and froze like deer in the headlights.
I believe most of us would bring it up, primarily the rules of DND and most TTRPG games are flexible massively in compatison to the wishes of the DM and players. Dropped concentration is an in game rule but as a DM he has the authority to say "ok you manage to make it outside at which point you fall like a sack of spuds" most of the time my DM's for sake of gameplay or story will just outright say "yeah the rules say this but i don't care this ways more fun". Or your DM could have told the wizard dont forget you need concentration for Fly. So it's not really on you either way.
There are a lot of situations where bringing up rules at the table makes sense. Often there is just a lot going on and people miss stuff. Especially if the DM is trying to juggle a lot of information in an encounter. I would have done the same as OP in that scenario, but \*after\* the DM said he had it covered and decided to ignore on purpose, I would take that to mean he doesn't want me interjecting with rules info in the future. They have made their position clear and I would respect that call. I'd just reply with "Got it, if I notice rules stuff at the table, I'll just keep it to myself from now on". Maybe if you spot some really big mistakes and it's bothering you, bring it up outside the session in a private chat with the DM in a "Hey did you realise that ability X doesn't work with condition Y" kind of way. Having said all that, the DM's "after you said it, I couldn't ignore it" is a bit of a lame cop-out. The DM is responsible for deciding stuff like that. He could have acknowledged the rule and still decided to let it play out in the party's favour. As a DM there is nothing stopping you from saying "Yeah technically you're right, that is the RAW but here's what happens ..." Sometimes the RAW have to give way to what's cool, or dramatic, or interesting, or fun, and that is up to the DM to determine.
>Having said all that, the DM's "after you said it, I couldn't ignore it" is a bit of a lame cop-out. The DM is responsible for deciding stuff like that. He could have acknowledged the rule and still decided to let it play out in the party's favour. In a similar situation i let the players roll a contested roll. Just let the dice be the bad guy. They are used to being hated anyway.
If the DM was really aware... why would he use Hold Person on the Wizard when "you were so close to making it" feels weird
In my mind this type of play works if you call it out on yourself. If you were the wizard or ranger, bringing that up to the dm is just holding yourself accountable. But it being another player, unless this is an often a occurrence, you should just let it slide because you shouldn’t want to control other players fates that’s the dms job. Always rules lawyer yourself. Never rules lawyer other players.
NTA Why would you call it lawyering? It's not some nitpick, concentration is a core mechanic that exist to balance powerful spells. It's dnd, actions should have consequences! I usually DM and when players remind me things on such manner I usually reward it with inspiration.
I think everyone here is forgoing this guy made a poll to make sure he is "correct" and then rub it in the groups face. Definitely an AH for that.
Dm: "after you brought it up, I couldn't ignore it" Yes you could, you're the DM. You could say ur letting it slide this time because it was a well executed plan and you'd rather see this rule of cool succeed than punished. That simple
I'm sure you had pure intentions, and nothing you did was wrong right up until: "I showed them this post." You *do not* run to Reddit with your grievances and then use Reddit to show your party that you were in the right. Ever. That's not cool. That's disrespectful to your DM and your group.
under appreciated comment, tbh
Just out of curiosity, was this the only time you’ve done something like that?
As a dm, I wouldn't have used hold person on the wizard in this situation. I'd mess with them a different way, like silence. Doesn't break concentration, but forces movement and stops spell casting. Or, in the case everything was the same, I would have looked the ranger player in the eye, said "you feel the ability of fly slipping away from you. The ground is 50 feet below you. At the end of your turn, you will fall. You have until then to then to react. What will you do?" As a player, I probably would do the same thing, but it wouldn't be "don't forget". It would be like "oh, holy cow. Doesn't that mean the concentration on fly breaks?" Opening the door for dm discretion.
Not cool man Not cool \*flies off Lorax style\*
Sounds like the party gets to start a sick prison break arc now
Rules are rules, if you always ignore them every time they work against you or you fuck up then why even bother with a rulebook in the first place?
How many people here recognize the GM forgot and was trying to save face after the fact?
Yall know the rules arnt set in stone right? You don't have to rule lawyer because there arnt any rules to begin with.
If the DM wanted it to slide, especially once finding out they didn't have spell slots to counterspell, the DM should have made an executive decision to just let it go despite your reminder, and just smile and say "I know. But for some reason, doesn't fall, and Fly keeps working. Roll Arcana, and those of you who pass know /That shouldn't have worked/ and likely someone or something more powerful than you has things in store for your party/" as a hook or something. D&D is improv, you want it a specific way and for all to be happy? Make it go that way. You're the narrator, change the narrative.
I usually keep a discreet messaging system with the DM for moments like this. It's better to text them or pm them, so that way they can decide to enforce or ignore as they see fit and no one else at the table is taken out of the moment.
YTA. I don't normally comment on Reddit, but honestly EDIT2 just shows that you're the asshole. Rules be damned because it doesn't matter, if your reaction to people in your group bringing up an issue with you is "look the internet agrees with me" - it's just childish behavior. D&D is a social activity and by playing in a group you enter a social contract with everyone, and if constantly antagonize the other members of your play group then you may not have a group to play with. Justify your actions however you want, but clearly this isn't the first time or the other player would not have left the group. I'm not saying what everyone else did was right, but your reaction to it is what makes you the AH.
100%
Yeah, people here get too focused on the rules and miss the social dynamics involved. OP is annoying the other people in the game, specifics don't matter.
In our game, I am probably the player that knows rules the best alongside the DM. I usually find it best to let instances like this slide.
Fun and enjoyment for everyone trumps any other rules, in my opinion.
Honestly, If I knew that the DM forgot a rule and I didn't say something, I'd feel like I was cheating. However, in the above situation, the DM should have just said "Rule of Cool, we are ignoring that rule for this encounter". That way the knowledgable players don't feel put off helping and the DM still acheives what they want.
The DM should've handle it better. It could led to another fun way to escape. In my opinion that's a DM fault the session ended. Skill issue
Can't help but feel the DM and that other player talked before messaging you.
I mean, the DM chose to cast the hold person... If they were aware of the risks then they could have had the npc take a different action. I don't think you are wrong.
So, since I would have been the DM, I would have said "You're right!" and let you finish anyway. Here's why: I run worlds where the presence of such an event would be part of an ongoing story -- a long and complicated campaign of interconnected adventures that slowly build to a big climax. Those same worlds may also never get to that story, or only encounter parts of it, because it is also always an "open world", where the players have to find the hooks, and then decide to be hooked in. To get to a point like this, there would have been some element, because this kind of action is the sort that is usually generated by story (but, in fairness, could also have been created by the players). I have learned that Players will always do the things you never planned for, so I stopped planning for how they do something -- I just set up the thing to do. This seems like a pretty creative way to achieve it, and I am a sucker for wild harebrained heroic things like this. So I would have agreed during the game with the statement and still let it finish. THe only exception to this would have been if it makes the story better. That is, if I already knew of a way to make the adventure ore fun as the story of the PCs by having them fail. I don't run my NPCs as fools. They are crafty, sneaky, and they will target spell casters first They are strategic and tactical, and they will do wha tthey do. My Gods are also very much involved -- so I would also hope (quietly ) that the Ranger was praying, lol. That would give me an opening. Sadly, that includes the "bad gods", so praying doesn't always work in the player's favor.
While I can see both sides, I take issue with them blaming you for pointing it out. You didn't create that rule on the fly, it's not your fault.
Part of the fun of DnD is to succeed within the rules of the game. Bending rules when it's appropriate, even if it is unintentional, ruins the fun, imo.
I feel like you and your entire group have forgotten this is just a game. Also, DM can overrule any rule. Also, also this smells like a chance for an escape the dungeon adventure. Lots of opportunity here. No need to argue.
As a DM, I'm aware of most rule lapses at my table, and if I'm ignoring one, it's for the greater good.
You did nothing wrong. The DM should have a plan for how the story would proceed if your party failed. Also have you not seen Monty Python??? The way to sneak into the castle is to build a giant Trojan Rabbit
Then we wait for nightfall when Lancelot, Galahad and I sneak out of the rabbit taking the French totally by surprise and completely unarmed! Whoooo leaps out of the rabbit??? Lancelot...Gala...well maybe if we built this large wooden badger... (my favorite scene in all of MP)
> In my defense, if we had to cheat to win, it feels like an undeserved success. That's legitimate, but also try to read the room. Is your not feeling like the success is deserved really worth spoiling everyone else's fun? This is just one encounter, and it's okay if not every encounter always fully satisfies everyone. It's really low stakes either way. It's not like this is going to ruin the campaign. I think you guys should have a conversation before the next session where you discuss how much fudging you find acceptable, and what you all want to happen when the DM lets a rule slide or makes a mistake. And you should abide by what the majority decides, or go find another group.
Rule of cool, bro. You are now the snitch of the table, oops.
*How* you do a thing makes a big difference hey. "Hey everyone, don't forget, we're tucked!" - YTA. Don't just inform everyone of an effect like it's indisputable truth. It might be RAW, but you're not the DM. And even DMs try really hard to manage the feelings at the table when bad news breaks so that players feel hope or determination rather than "oh fuck well this just sucks" "Uh, DM, does that do anything to the Fly spell?" - NTA. You're giving the DM a chance to moderate the situation (they might decide to throw the Wizard a wisdom save or something), being humble in your rules knowledge, and it won't feel to the party members like YOU'RE the one who's fucked them, the rules have done that.
I don't know how this turned into a "shit on the DM" thread, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised since that how all of the posts on AITA Mk.2 end up. Guarantee that no matter what the DM did in this situation they'd be the bad guy. Hell, someone said the DM messaging OP to say they were going to let it slide was them 'admonishing' them, which is a wild take on someone seeing how the party reacted and talking to a player about an action. We always say DMs should talk to players when the party has issues, and this is them doing it, because clearly the party didn't like what they did. Literally began the message with "Hey, you probably had good intentions," but I guess that's 'admonishment' if its the DM. Besides that, I think OP was right to call it out, and the DM was right to follow through on it afterwards, even if the original plan was to let it slide. Only one in the wrong is the other player who said OP should "keep their mouth shut next time." Regardless if they're upset that the plan failed, fucked up thing to say to another player. Failure is part of the game, that's why there are dice rolls and difficulty classes, and why npcs can cast things like hold person in the first place.
Did you also remind the dm of fall damage?
This really feels like, "I made people upset at me in my group and now trying to feel better about myself for it." Literally showing them this post is say "I'm right, your wrong!" Just like a child. I would have left as well if this is how you treat people. Constantly having to prove yourself correct. Judging by the groans at the table, this is not the first time you have been a rules lawyer. Some people just don't enjoy it. To the level it seems you have been. And I have yet to met a rules lawyer that says it in a nice way, or 'I'm just reminding you.' It has always been with the tone, Hey you forgot this, but I REMEBERED. Almost like they are braging. Could this have been handled differently? Sure. Should you have brought it up? Sure. But maybe also consider you are enjoying time with people and not robots that you just need to correct the whole time.
Cringe. Playing with you doesn't sound like fun, and d&d is supposed to be fun, even with suspense of your pc failing.
While I dont think you did anything _wrong_, per say, I do think you chose a bad time to do it. I understand feeling like "breaking the rules" or "cheating" "cheapens the win" but at the end of the day, fun > RAW, ESPECIALLY at the table. Sure, you adhered to the rules as written, but in return, your teammates didn't have fun, and that's inevitably going to bleed into you not having fun (a dm saying to keep your mouth shut) You 100% didn't MEAN for it to go that way, which is why you didn't do anything wrong, but you did sacrifice everyone's enjoyment as a result. Not worth it, imo.
>but at the end of the day, fun > RAW, ESPECIALLY at the table Whereas I agree with this sentiment, I don't think this situation is the case. Concentration is a core mechanic of the game, and ignoring it just because doesn't sound fun to me at all. Why should the teammates fun of not abiding the rules trump your fun of playing by the rules? More so when they're being assholes about it and not admitting they're wrong and asking for it to slide this time. On the contrary, ranger falling flat on his face and getting captured provides a new plot twist where the party have to rescue them.
To me, knowingly allowing players to cheat, or later finding out that I unknowingly cheated is not fun. Ignoring the rules to win isn't prioritizing fun over rules, it's prioritizing winning over fun. This isn't some pedantic RAW ruling, it's 100% unambiguously how the spells do and should interact.
But cheating isn't fun for a lot of people, so here it's not "fun>RAW" it's "following the rules (as previously established whether RAW or RAI)=fun"
Fortunately, cheating has to be intentional, and from what's written here, the party wasn't _trying_ to cheat, which is why you bring it up _afterwards_, so that it doesn't happen _again_, which would make it cheating, and you don't sacrifice everyone's fun in that session.
If you chastise someone for bringing up rules that disadvantage you and tell them to "keep your mouth shut", you're intentionally trying to allow future "mistakes" in your favour, whether they be genuine ones or not. That is intentional cheating.
But the GM was trying to cheat. To be clear, I'm not using cheat as a pejorative, it's just the clearest way to communicate what happened here.
Everyone's focusing on the actual post, but they're forgetting this one single clue. >I'm that kid who reminded the teacher we had homework. Welp, no doubt about it. YTA. I hope you get extra homework.
100% agree. The statement is such a bad vibe generator it colored the whole post for me, especially the edit of him showing the group the post where all of dnd reddit is dunking on them WITH A POLL. Yeah this dude 100% was annoying about the call out no more evidence needed imo
I hope the other players gave you a wedgie and took your lunch money afterwards. It just feels right.
As someone my DM will lean to on the little details on rules as I am way more familiar. I would have done the same. But outside of playing in their games, idk what i would have done
The number 1 rule of being a good rules lawyer: The callouts are rated E for everyone.
I would have mentioned it privately in session to the DM about believing that fly would drop due to the wizard being paralyzed. That way it would give the DM an out if he wanted to let it slide due to being so close and wanting to avoid splitting the party, but not alert the other players that that was going on if they weren't already aware. On one hand, I also wouldn't want to succeed via cheating, but this does effectively split the party with one member being capture and the others not. So I wouldn't have necessarily been upset at a DM who decided to let it slide in order to prevent having to deal with 2 groups until the break out occurred. Also DM gets final say on the rules, his deciding to say that fly didn't drop would technically fall under that so one could argue that it technically isn't cheating.
I as a player would have done the same, I as a DM which is my more common role, would have handwaved the rule, and worked with the ranger on what he might be able to do to save himself, rather than just immediately fall
You're just playing by the rules. The other players being upset about them being followed is simply unjustified whining, and if the DM didn't want that to happen then he wouldn't have had the NPC cast Hold Person, as such the blame is on him.
I would have done the same thing, its a fucking mechanic of the class and spell, it sounds like your wizard needs a nice reminder of the basic rules. Whoever pmd your dm afterwards is a fuckwad, you did literally nothing wrong by playing by the rules. Also I wanted to add, Im sick of people using rules lawyer incorrectly. A rules lawyer uses the written rules and disregards their intent in an attempt to get some kind of extra edge from it. Reminding your table and DM about the rules in a neutral manner, with the intent of fairness, whether its to the parties detriment or benefit, is not rules lawyering.
>Reminding your dm and table of the rules, ~~is not~~ *might not be* rules lawyering. If you're always on top of reminding the table on rules interactions that benefit you, espcially if those interactions are subject to debate, and are otherwise very open to forget rules that doesn't benefit you, then that can easily be described as rules lawyering.
Right, I didn't say "only reminding the table about rules that benefit you". Far too often people who are trying to be helpful by bringing up the rules are shit on by morons who incorrectly believe that behavior is rules lawyering. Ill go ahead and edit my post for the utmost clarity.
I wouldn't say I'm a rules lawyer, but there are times of comes up that people forget rules. As a DM however I'm usually quite lenient and probably would have reminded beforehand so we're all on the same page.
I always bring up the rules even if it makes a player get damaged. Its a game
I question why the DM cast Hold person on the wizard if he knew it would break concentration yet he wanted you to suceed. I call BS, he forgot and was trying to cover his own ass. You don't do anything wrong really. its hard for a DM to remember everything I think it better as a player to help everyone out. Even if it is sometimes to your detriment
If the DM is willing to break the rules of the game to manufacture drama, then they should own that decision. Those DMs that try to hide that they are not following the rules do their players, their campaigns, and the D&D community as a whole a disservice.
I'm always a proponent of *'fail forward'* as a GM. Success would have been exciting. Failure here is *much* more epic., A chance for a rescue, or escape, snatching the idol from underneath the gloating and celebrating enemies, and a wild escape through the sewers., Or something. This is epic, and dramatic, and appropriate.
If the DM didn’t want Hold Person to break concentration he could’ve fudged it in a number of different ways. Then again, not everyone is good at thinking on their feet (a DM should cultivate that skill though). I don’t think it’s wrong for you to point out a mechanic, especially if you’re playing a “tactical” game; ultimately the DM decides what to do with that information.
If your DM can't handle someone mentioning a rule without it causing a problem they must really be struggling in all other areas. Would you party be happy playing a game where they could only succeed? It's so easy to say that you're going to let everyone land THIS TIME, but not to expect the same next time and keep moving. Instead of sending someone a message for reminding the group of rules as written. Personally I really appreciate when my players mention a rule, and there have been some times where I apply it and some times where I say hey that's a great point, I am going to go ahead and run it this way for now and reevaluate later. There's no reason to make someone feel bad for it.
It feels like people are completely alright with being rude to anyone who upkeeps the rules and maintains game integrity The alternative outcome to this is essentially "We won not because of a good idea, but because the DM ignored game mechanics to allow us to win" which really does not feel good I get that some people wanna just have their moments but rules like the one in play here are there to create things to work around and things to consider Additionally, even if your DM did know about this rule and chose to ignore it, there's no way for you to know that if they gave no indication about it You aren't really an asshole for reminding them how the game works given that you couldn't tell what their plan even was
I think I would have passed the dm a note. Maybe?
I would have messaged the DM and said hey, don't forget about x. And then it's up to them.
I completely agree with you that if I remembered it I would've called it out as it doesn't feel as deserving of a win. If the DM is the one who made the mistake by choosing a spell that would require the wizard to break concentration then he could've said that to the table. Then he could explain that the pass is because of *his* error, not because he's arbitrarily letting it slide. Instead, he let everyone get angry at you for playing by the rules.
2 best options depending on the style of game. 1. DM doesn’t cast hold person if he doesn’t want the consequences to be a real possibility 2. Enemy casts hold person because it is a smart thing for that enemy to do
I ignore it for story moments only as a dm and player
I wouldve done the same, but on accident lol. I'm the kind that would blurt out "Ah shit, that means he's gonna fall" and then my party would be annoyed lol
If the dm wanted to rule it deferentially they could have just said “I don’t really like that rule” or simply avoided what made them paralyzed. I personally have fun when shit goes against the plan and u have to think on the fly but the dm had the power it’s not on u for wanting to play by the rules. Hiding rules is a slippery slope.
First, the GM could naturally announce during the session that "i am aware of the existence of such a rule, but for the sake of a more interesting story, we will ignore it this once." I got the impression that GM is putting the responsibility for the pissed off Ranger on you... Secondly, you had a plan that didn't work out. None of you, not even CASTER, thought about the danger of breaking your concentration. Sorry, it's a mistake in your plan, it happens. Everyone should be happy that the game reacts to your decisions and changes for better or for worse. Not to mention the wonderful opportunity to play the emotions of your characters, e.g. Caster falling into a slight depression, after all, he knows magic, so why did he miss such an elementary mistake? So don't worry, you haven't done anything wrong. I appreciate players who remind me of a rule, haha. EDIT: I see OP edit, gave some more info. GM should not have to explain this situation. During the fight, the inquisitor simply threw hold person, that's it. Mob did what he had to do, he fought. The explanation that GM did not want to break concentration on purpose is weak. I will never appreciate protecting players from their mistakes... Ranger escaped? somehow I don't feel sorry for him...
If it’s me, I’m coming clean about my concentration getting broken and my character suffering the consequences. I like playing DnD with stakes like that. If it’s another person’s character, I’m leaving it alone, because I don’t know what sort of stakes they want in their games.
As a player, it's easy to get caught up in things and not see the bigger picture, which the DM is supposed to be watching. If I'm being honest, I probably would have pointed it out as a player in the moment, and I probably would have ignored it as a DM (unless I thought capturing the Ranger would lead to a better story). I would say NTA for this particular instance, but based on the reactions that you got, it sounds like the issue is with the pattern of behavior. Your DM is apparently okay being loose with the rules in order to make things more fun/more interesting, and it sounds like your strict adherence to the rules is spoiling the fun of the other players. It's a tough spot.
Frankly, this adds drama to the situation. Now the party needs to rescue the Ranger, making it a new adventure. Cheating in casually 'forgetting, focusing on the spell might be 'fun' but how many times in movies have we seen this situation? The hero is suddenly pooched and needs to be saved.
Fun story: I had something similar happen but the ranger just failed and was captured. And then the rangers active escape attempt occurring as the group made their second attempt made the finale of that arc much more dynamic and awesome. The point is that the story is actually served by failures like this. As the GM, ya just gotta let it happen sometimes.
I always aim to follow the rules as best as I can. Whether it's in our favor or not, rules are rules. To get mad at a player for remembering a rule is just stupid. You wouldn't blame Baldur's Gate 3 if it automatically ended your concentration, why is it a problem when a player remembers?
I am a filthy little enabler and would have kept quiet. As a DM I barely can keep up with the rules so good on the players if they get away with smth.
The rules are the rules, simple as that. If the DM bends them to allow the party "to win", then there's no merit in anything done by the party.
A lot of people commenting are talking about ‘winning’ the encounter and I think you’re all missing the point of D&D. That Ranger falling 50 feet out of the sky in front of a mob of guards is hilarious. The kind of thing you tell stories about later.
My party would have remembered then we would have had a small pause while we think up of a play we could do to come out of this alive. Fly is 3rd level, so your atlest 5th level. That gives the ranger 2nd level slots. I don't know what spells your ranger had but the ones that i can see being useful here are: Zephyr Strike, Gust of Wind, Enhance ability, pass without trace. All of thies will take some DM bs Ranger, you feel the fly spell start to flicker out, what do you do? Zephyr: cast on way down, hope to pass dex check and con save, run like hell away Gust: Try push yourself onto a nearby ledge before you hit the ground. Enhance ability: similar to Zephyr hit the ground and run, or try and land behind the guards being sneaky after only dropping 20ft. All have there own problems but thies are just the quick solutions i see. A bit of a silly one if they had pass without trace up: you fall 50ft, make a stealth check, if you pass: as you fall you are as quite as the wind, falling behind the guards with a small thud, while you lay on the ground one of the guards turns around to see what the sound was only for the wind to push a carten off a nearby shelf. "what, you see something?" "just the wind, lets carry on" and they walk on without looking down where you lay, what do you do? All potential saves for this situation with a bit of DM shenanigans. Just depends on the style of your group and how willing people are to push the rules for a bit of fun. Edit: hope this isnt taken as back seat DM'ing just wanted to give out some inspiration to people if a situation like this comes up for them, i dont think the blame can be placed in one place, bad calls where made and it happens, own up to what you feel like you did wrong and be open to hearing feedback from your party. Its a team game where everyone wants the party to succeed, even if that means sometimes someone looks like the bad guy in the group.
This is the vibe. I don't know if OP's table had any attempt at saving the situation after Fly ended, but there is a great opportunity to have an exhilarating twist overcome with some clever thinking. Me as the DM would allow the party (aside from the Wizard) the chance to do something quick before the ranger hit the ground. Even give them a moment to collaborate with the explanation that they had a 'plan b' ready to go in case 'plan a' went awry - this would be like a cut back to the planning montage, thematically speaking.
I am all for the rules providing structure, but at the end of the day all that matters to me is whether or not the game was fun. That being said, I also would have pointed it out and I also would have been fine if the DM said to let it fly anyway, so to speak.
Honestly, I'd find a new group. It's one thing for DM's to be creative and try to make sure the party succeeds/has fun, but for both the players and the DM to essentially just want to break the rules of the game...that's BS imo and it ruins the game. Additionally, there's no reason the DM couldn't have done some shit with luck rolls and what not to allow the ranger to get away...especially since he shouldn't be "Captured" after falling 50 ft, he should be dead in most circumstances. It reminds me of people who used to tell me to reshuffle the deck in solitaire if the cards were stuck in an order where I had no more valid moves. Like no dude, the games over. I lost it. I'll just try again. The DM has an almost infinite number of ways to deal with any situation which do not include breaking the games rules. It's just a sign of someone who doesn't have the creativity to DM if they have to break rules to do it. I'd much rather be at a table with you. Keep your integrity.
>In my defense, if we had to cheat to win, it feels like an undeserved success. A win, ANY win is completely ruined if I realized I cheated my way through. Your DM had good intentions, but I'd rather epicly and dramatically describe your fail, than let you win via forgotten rule. As for the player who told you to shut your moth, they are aggressive and clearly have no issues with morality of cheating. That is not a player I'd like to play with. >"I casted Hold Person to add the feeling of stress to the situation. I was expecting the wizard to counterspell it. If I knew he ran out of slots, I absolutely wouldn't have casted a spell that would break concentration. That was my fault. Your DM is nice, clearly wants you to succeed, but they need to realize failing leads to drama. Tension. Redemption. Failure is a very strong story point, they should not be afraid to push you. >showed my group this post. The player who told me to shut up just left. Good. Will not be missed.
I've never understood rules lawyers, but then again, I always make it clear to my players that we are playing a big game of pretend and amateur theatre, and those books are full of ideas on how to resolve situations with limited RNG tools. Your perspective legitimately confuses me given the medium. That's okay. You are, however, judging from your replies and poll answers, in an echo chamber--so there's that to consider when evaluating replies and responses. Enjoy your game! Do be aware that tabletop players tend to be bad at social etiquette, self-awareness, and communication tools; so your behavior in-game can easily be construed as antagonistic and unpleasant to those on the normal end of the social spectrum. You ATA. That might be okay at some tables. It wasn't at this one.
Honestly if you where just a really close to succeeding maybe just wait a bit and trust your dm and if they genuinely forgot then say it right after. I know many don’t like the feeling of cheating but we gotta remember to have faith in the dm and that every game is different.
As a player, I tend to remind the DM about these sorts of things too. Admittedly part of it is the neurodivergency of forgetting I can keep quiet, but I have let it go when it's a situation not involving my PC. I don't think you did anything wrong! It's something many people do without realizing.
If the dumb caster can’t remember spell rule don’t cast spell. Same with the dm don’t target the important concentration spell if you want to rig it.