I am playing a character themed after light.
My character has a special power that lets them debuff a wide radius of enemies, but they need to be "carrying" a light source and the light source needs to illuminate those enemies. The power does not need me to actively wield or hold the light source, but just "carry" it.
My character would normally wield a wand in one hand and use the other arm for a buckler and an everburning torch. Note than an everburning torch is a quasi-magical item that involves no physical fire or heat whatsoever, at least in this system (*not* 3.5/PF).
We got into a fight with generic zombies in the daytime. (Superpowered zombies, but still.) The GM had us roll for initiative and threw us straight into combat, without asking us for our equipment configurations.
At one point, I tried to use my special power that required a light source, but the GM said I never declared it was out (but none of us declared we had anything out, and yet GM was fine with me having my wand and shield out, someone else having a magical rod out, etc.). I could not use the power because I did not have enough actions. I let it slide.
After the session, I pleaded my case to the GM and the group. I apparently explained it very poorly, because the end result was that the group consensus is that I am now a "rules lawyer," and that it is COMPLETELY ABSURD for anyone to be carrying a torch in broad daylight (even when it it is a torch without physical fire or heat, my character is themed after light, my character uses it for a special power, and magic wands and rods can be considered standard equipment for combat).
In fact, the way I argued it was apparently so "unreasonable" and "tiring" that the group is threatening to split apart because of it. The GM is feeling like ending the game.
How exactly can I plead my case in a better way? I do not think it is that unreasonable at all for a character to be carrying a glow-rod as part of their standard combat configuration.
Either you're not telling us something important or your GM and gaming group need to be replaced. One fucking incident that isn't so bad that you should be getting cries of "RULES LAWYER REEEEE", and your incident is a common mistake that any experienced DM should be at least somewhat familiar with.
Oh, this certainly is not the first incident. The GM has many a completely baffling rules call (e.g. completely misusing skills to the point where many of our skills literally meant nothing and did nothing during an hour-long [in real time] scene), but I have been saving my complaints for after each session.
This particular case seems to be the one that has not only miffed the GM, but the rest of the group as well, for reasons I cannot quite determine.
>saving the complaints
That. Don't do that. DMs only get better if they know what to fix. If you don't tell them they can't, and if you wait too long it just seems like you're pulling stuff out of your ass.
Read the rest of that sentence. They said that they've been saving the complaints for AFTER the session, meaning they're not interrupting a session to complain (which is rude).
Assuming OP is telling the truth, they've done everything right and their group is a bunch of faggots.
It is unusual that you say this, because bringing up complaints and arguments *mid-game* is what this very board had told me *not* to do, because it supposedly disrupted the flow of a session to a grinding halt.
If bringing up complaints after the game means they get completely ignored, then you move up to "interrupting the session to make sure this shit gets addressed". The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and all that.
What did you say to them? As much detail as you can remember. Your group is either a huge collection of dickweeds or there is *something* in the context or phrasing that's causing this reaction.
For one, I kept on bringing up that an everburning torch is *not an actual torch as we know it*. It has neither fire nor heat, yet they kept on using the word "torch" and bringing up how absurd it was to assume that someone would carry such a thing as part of their default configuration in broad daylight. It could have been that the word "torch" was too loaded a word, which conveyed the wrong mental image.
For two, they considered it a highly nonstandard configuration--why would someone carry around a "torch" in broad daylight? Never mind that it is used for a special power, and that it is fine for casters to haul around wands and rods as part of their default configuration for combat too.
For three, they also seemed to be displeased by the way the power was being used:
>Stay Back, Dungeoneering Utility 2
>You sweep your torch or lantern around you to dazzle enemies accustomed to total darkness.
>Minor Action, Personal
>Requirement: You must be carrying a light source.
>Effect: Until the end of your next turn, enemies in the squares illuminated by the light source you are carrying take a -2 penalty to attack rolls.
They kept on bringing up how it is supposed to simulate the iconic "fending off monsters with a torch in the dark" gimmick, but I kept on pointing out that, RAW, that is not what it actually does: it works with any light source and even in broad daylight, the flavor text is just one way to use it, and it could reasonably be a psychological trick that exploits a dazzling light source.
I'd just give it up and make a different character.
I think that would be rather drastic.
What I find particularly baffling is that the group is so caught up with something as trivial as a single power with a single minor debuff (through granted, it affects a very wide area), and is on the verge of breaking up due to it.