[3.5] The first time I've actually read the Armor Proficiency feat

[Laniius]

"When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks."

If you're proficient in the armor you're wearing, do you take no penalty on swim, ride, or use rope?

If so, the feat is slightly more powerful than I thought.

[RMS Oceanic]

Looking up Armor at The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm):


Armor Check Penalty
Any armor heavier than leather hurts a character’s ability to use some skills. An armor check penalty number is the penalty that applies to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks by a character wearing a certain kind of armor. Double the normal armor check penalty is applied to Swim checks. A character’s encumbrance (the amount of gear carried, including armor) may also apply an armor check penalty.

Shields
If a character is wearing armor and using a shield, both armor check penalties apply.

Nonproficient with Armor Worn
A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he or she is not proficient takes the armor’s (and/or shield’s) armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all Strength-based and Dexterity-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for nonproficiency with shields.

Sleeping in Armor
A character who sleeps in medium or heavy armor is automatically fatigued the next day. He or she takes a -2 penalty on Strength and Dexterity and can’t charge or run. Sleeping in light armor does not cause fatigue.

So it does apply to swim - doubly so in fact - but the others are fine.

[sonofzeal]

Looking up Armor at The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm):



So it does apply to swim - doubly so in fact - but the others are fine.
........unless you're playing Pathfinder, which added those penalties back in. Because Melee, and Nice Things.

[Chronos]

You probably don't want to wear armor you're not proficient in, but that doesn't exactly make armor proficiency "powerful", since it's almost never worth spending a feat on. Really, what you've just discovered is that armor sucks less than you thought.

[Laniius]

Looking up Armor at The SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/armor.htm):



So it does apply to swim - doubly so in fact - but the others are fine.

But I would argue since the feat states

"Benefit

When you wear a type of armor with which you are proficient, the armor check penalty for that armor applies only to Balance, Climb, Escape Artist, Hide, Jump, Move Silently, Sleight of Hand, and Tumble checks,"

and swim is not on that list, that if you are proficient in armor you do not suffer penalties.

Which is adjudicated first? The feat or the gear description, and which takes precendence? In the matter of swimming, they seem to condradict eachother; or Swim would be called out in the feat.

[Particle_Man]

You probably don't want to wear armor you're not proficient in.

Unless you are, say, a Psion. :smallbiggrin:

[Rubik]

Unless you are, say, a Psion. :smallbiggrin:Or are using mithral chain shirts and/or gnome twistcloth with no ACP.

[NNescio]

Unless you are, say, a Psion. :smallbiggrin:

Penalties to Initiative still suck (as our good friend the Factotum would remind us, Init is a Dex check), and if you happen to use the rare power that does require an attack roll, well...

[ericgrau]

It is a dex check but it is not a dex based skill check. Psions get it easy unless you like to use rays.

[eggs]

Which is adjudicated first? The feat or the gear description, and which takes precendence? In the matter of swimming, they seem to condradict eachother; or Swim would be called out in the feat.The general rule is that it applies twice to swim checks.
The armor proficiency rule is more specific.
Specific exceptions override general rules.
Proficient characters aren't penalized while swimming.

[Answerer]

The general rule is that it applies twice to swim checks.
The armor proficiency rule is more specific.
Specific exceptions override general rules.
Proficient characters aren't penalized while swimming.
Not quite. Characters who actually take the feat are not penalized.

Those who gain proficiency from class levels do not have the feat, and thus would be.

[eggs]

Those who gain proficiency from class levels do not have the feat, and thus would be.
From the PHB/SRD:

All characters except wizards, sorcerers, and monks automatically have Armor Proficiency (light) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.
...
Fighters, barbarians, paladins, clerics, druids, and bards automatically have Armor Proficiency (medium) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.
...
Fighters, paladins, and clerics automatically have Armor Proficiency (heavy) as a bonus feat. They need not select it.

Though it is not explicitly spelled out, I would disagree with an implementation that did not infer that having proficiency is synonymous with having the bonus feats.

[Answerer]

Hmm... you would appear to be right. I stand corrected.

[Particle_Man]

It is conversations like this that make me glad I am a RAI kind of guy. :smallsmile:

[NNescio]

It is a dex check but it is not a dex based skill check. Psions get it easy unless you like to use rays.


(NOT PF-SRD)[/b]"]Nonproficient with Armor Worn
A character who wears armor and/or uses a shield with which he or she is not proficient takes the armor’s (and/or shield’s) armor check penalty on attack rolls and on all Strength-based and Dexterity-based ability and skill checks. The penalty for nonproficiency with armor stacks with the penalty for nonproficiency with shields.

You probably confused the rules for PF with the ones from 3.5.

[Answerer]

It is conversations like this that make me glad I am a RAI kind of guy. :smallsmile:
How can you be? Do you have some access to the developers' inner thoughts that the rest of us lack?

[Pigkappa]

How can you be? Do you have some access to the developers' inner thoughts that the rest of us lack?
No, he's smart enough to understand that swimming in heavy armor is difficult.

And also smart enough to know that 99% people recognize that swimming in heavy armor is difficult, and so able to estimate the probability that the game designers wrote those unclear rules to be interpreted in the way you read it with a very low number (certainly < 0.01).

[charcoalninja]

Course the armoured PCs ARE supposed to be badasses and swimming around just dandy in armour seems to be something heroes should be able to do.

[Particle_Man]

How can you be? Do you have some access to the developers' inner thoughts that the rest of us lack?

Yes. It is called "thinking about it for 5 minutes and using common sense." :smallsmile:

Seriously, do you really think the developers spent time putting in rules for the Swim skill being restricted by armour, in order to have those rules negated by a description somewhere else that seems to be a mere omission? Do you really think that the developers thought that it is perfectly ok to swim in full plate mail without any problems, but that there are issues with jumping and climbing in that same armour?

Just think about it for 5 minutes. Maybe the RAI fairy will bless you with wisdom too.

[ericgrau]

You probably confused the rules for PF with the ones from 3.5.

It's not in the 3.5 proficiency feat rules though. I hate abbreviated rules like that.

[shadow_archmagi]

How can you be? Do you have some access to the developers' inner thoughts that the rest of us lack?

Yes. Since the developers were human, we share the human experience. The truth is that most human's thought patterns flow in similar configurations, and so we can guess at the intentions of other humans by extrapolating from their previous words and actions.

You know. Meatbag stuff.

[VDOS]

I think this might be an issue from the 3.0 to 3.5 conversion. As some might remember that in 3.0 the armor check penalty did not apply to swim, it instead was based on the weight carried by an individual. If think it was at a rate of -1 per five pounds of equipment.

[Answerer]

No, he's smart enough to understand that swimming in heavy armor is difficult.

And also smart enough to know that 99% people recognize that swimming in heavy armor is difficult, and so able to estimate the probability that the game designers wrote those unclear rules to be interpreted in the way you read it with a very low number (certainly < 0.01).
Yes. It is called "thinking about it for 5 minutes and using common sense." :smallsmile:

Seriously, do you really think the developers spent time putting in rules for the Swim skill being restricted by armour, in order to have those rules negated by a description somewhere else that seems to be a mere omission? Do you really think that the developers thought that it is perfectly ok to swim in full plate mail without any problems, but that there are issues with jumping and climbing in that same armour?

Just think about it for 5 minutes. Maybe the RAI fairy will bless you with wisdom too.
Yes. Since the developers were human, we share the human experience. The truth is that most human's thought patterns flow in similar configurations, and so we can guess at the intentions of other humans by extrapolating from their previous words and actions.

You know. Meatbag stuff.
No.

None of these arguments address RAI.

They are just what you think makes sense. They are also what I think makes sense, for the record. But what makes sense has nothing to do with the intent of the authors. You cannot claim to know what the authors intended, unless you have some sort of evidence that they meant anything other than what was actually written – which you do not.

And this matters, because claiming anything is RAI is a logical fallacy – a blatant Appeal to Authority (actually technically not really, but it's close and I'm not aware of a term for precisely what's going on here). It is the attempt to make your own personal standpoint appear more valid than others' by giving it the weight of a nebulous claim of the author's "intent".

It has nothing to do with this particular case – I'd never attempt to argue in any game that I shouldn't take ACP to the omitted skills. But it's a serious issue to continue to rely on "RAI" as a crutch in debates about the rules. You do not know RAI. You cannot play by RAI. And claiming you do is tantamount to saying everyone who doesn't play the way you do is doing it wrong.

So yes, I object to your use of RAI, no matter how "obvious" it is. Show me some author commentary saying that they didn't mean to write what they did write, and then we can have an actual debate.

[Acanous]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's spelled out pretty plainly.
Armor proficiency: Heavy allows you to swim without taking the armor check penalty. (Twice! Even). However, you are still penalized by weight carried and encumberance. If the armor you are wearing is also 200 lbs, you are still taking negatives. Disregarding the armor check penalty is, from this standpoint, fair without being overpowered.

[Particle_Man]

No.

None of these arguments address RAI.

I think you are outnumbered in the proper use of RAI. :smallbiggrin:

I will consider myself allowed to guess at the author's probable intent in cases that seem very obvious to me, and apply "RAI" as that term. The default setting is not "I can never ever predict what another human being intended ever because they are not me" because that way of thinking can lead to its logical extreme, "I can never ever know *if* another human being is really thinking anything because they are not me - perhaps I am the only conscious being in the world."

But if it makes you feel any better, you can personally interpret my first post in this thread to read "It is threads like this that make me glad I am a common sense kind of guy". I hereby give you my permission. :smallsmile:

[Particle_Man]

Well, as far as I'm concerned, it's spelled out pretty plainly.
Armor proficiency: Heavy allows you to swim without taking the armor check penalty. (Twice! Even). However, you are still penalized by weight carried and encumberance. If the armor you are wearing is also 200 lbs, you are still taking negatives. Disregarding the armor check penalty is, from this standpoint, fair without being overpowered.

So you allow that line of reasoning of not applying the armor check penalty to apply to swimming because, hey, the armour will weigh a lot and it will probably give an encumbrance-based penalty anyhow, but still require the armor check penalty to apply to climbing or jumping?

[Answerer]

I think you are outnumbered in the proper use of RAI. :smallbiggrin:

I will consider myself allowed to guess at the author's probable intent in cases that seem very obvious to me, and apply "RAI" as that term. The default setting is not "I can never ever predict what another human being intended ever because they are not me" because that way of thinking can lead to its logical extreme, "I can never ever know *if* another human being is really thinking anything because they are not me - perhaps I am the only conscious being in the world."

But if it makes you feel any better, you can personally interpret my first post in this thread to read "It is threads like this that make me glad I am a common sense kind of guy". I hereby give you my permission. :smallsmile:
The problem is when it is obvious to you, but not obvious to others. This applies to common sense even more so than it does to "RAI". And claiming that your personal preference is just "common sense" is equivalent to saying that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, and lacks common sense. That is an insult.

Also, your slippery slope argument fails, because in this case we have exactly one piece of evidence regarding what the designers intended to write: the things that they actually wrote. Of course, there are mistakes in there, things they did not intend. This is almost definitely one of them (only healing-by-drowning and monk nonproficiency strike me as more likely to be), but we cannot know that for sure. Even so, I'd have accepted "I am glad I don't give RAW so much weight" or something – this is dumb RAW. But you cannot be a "RAI kinda guy" or a "common sense kinda guy" because those things are impossible to be in cases where things are not so clear-cut.

[Chronos]

Quoth charcoalninja:

Course the armoured PCs ARE supposed to be badasses and swimming around just dandy in armour seems to be something heroes should be able to do.Sure. And that's represented in the game by the fact that badass heroes have high Str scores and a lot of skill ranks, enough to overcome the penalty.

And of course Particle_Man is applying his common sense (which is not exactly the same as anyone else's common sense) in determining RAI. That's what RAI is. What he's saying isn't RAW (and he's not claiming it is), but it is the rules as he's interpreting them. You know, Rules As Interpreted.

[Particle_Man]

So we can either live in a world where no one can even hope to guess what other people think (which lets out a lot the ability to research authors' intentions concerning any written work in history, btw, which would greatly lessen that discipline of knowledge) or we can live in a world where people can apply abilities like empathy and common sense to guess what other people are probably thinking, taking into account that we can't be 100% sure, but realizing that if we restrict ourselves to what is 100% sure we will not have much knowledge about anything.

I will live in the former world. I will certainly guess what designers intended. I will consider that knowledge, by my definition of knowledge.

No insult is intended. Other people can be incorrect without being bad people. :smallsmile:

[Zeuy]

Quoth charcoalninja:
And of course Particle_Man is applying his common sense (which is not exactly the same as anyone else's common sense) in determining RAI. That's what RAI is. What he's saying isn't RAW (and he's not claiming it is), but it is the rules as he's interpreting them. You know, Rules As Interpreted.
RAI typically stands for "Rules as Intended."

[Answerer]

And of course Particle_Man is applying his common sense (which is not exactly the same as anyone else's common sense) in determining RAI. That's what RAI is. What he's saying isn't RAW (and he's not claiming it is), but it is the rules as he's interpreting them. You know, Rules As Interpreted.
This makes me very happy... if only that's what people meant by RAI.


So we can either live in a world where no one can even hope to guess what other people think (which lets out a lot the ability to research authors' intentions concerning any written work in history, btw, which would greatly lessen that discipline of knowledge) or we can live in a world where people can apply abilities like empathy and common sense to guess what other people are probably thinking, taking into account that we can't be 100% sure, but realizing that if we restrict ourselves to what is 100% sure we will not have much knowledge about anything.

I will live in the former world. I will certainly guess what designers intended. I will consider that knowledge, by my definition of knowledge.

No insult is intended. Other people can be incorrect without being bad people. :smallsmile:
I suppose I have not been clear.

You are perfectly welcome to make statements about what you think, or even what you think the developers intended.

But when you say something is RAI, or the way you play is by RAI, you are not doing that.

You are not taking ownership of your opinions. You are trying to assert that they are not merely your personal preference or interpretation, but rather than they are in fact better because it's "what they really meant to write when they did not actually write that!"

And that's neither accurate nor fair. You don't know for a fact that they intended to write something other than what they did. You think so. That's all you have.

So don't hide behind RAI: there is no such thing, not in any meaningful way. As far as we can tell, they intended to write what they actually wrote. Don't try to prop up your opinions with nebulous claims of their superiority because you have some knowledge those who disagree with you don't.

Support your opinions with reason and evidence, not logical fallacies.

[Particle_Man]

So you want, not only me, but everyone (except the designers themselves), to retire the phrase RAI, because I/we have not actually talked to the game designers (at least not on this particular subject)?

Um, no. I will define RAI as "what I think, based on common sense, that the designers probably intended" and will continue to use it as I define it (and I should add as many others (including others in this very thread) define it). If I say that RAI the designers probably intended X in a particular case, and others come up with arguments as to why the designers probably did not intend X in a particular case, or at least gives gives good reasons for me to doubt that the designers probably did intend X, then I will give that a fair hearing and may change my mind on that particular case.

This allows me to use the phrase RAI in a probabilistic, fallible manner. That is as legitimate as using knowledge itself in a probabilistic, fallible manner (and I do consider it legitimate to use knowledge in such a manner). My use of RAI is based on the idea that I can, in fact, guess what other humans are thinking when they are doing something. The ability to guess what other humans are thinking (and to proceed based on that, and even to say things like "this is what they intend") is a fairly common human ability. It can be honed in games like poker for particular situations (like, well, playing poker :smallsmile: ). It can be used to more deeply appreciate plays and movies that one is watching. Those that lack this ability entirely are often pitied in some contexts, treated as having a mental disorder in others, or both in still others.

I am not claiming status for RAI beyond that (since I accept that I could be wrong about the designers' intentions, although I probably am not), but I will keep using the expression, and will not stop using it. Furthermore, I mean no insult by so using it. I guess you can accept that as my personal "RAW" for you since I am actually typing this on this post - thus you don't have to guess as my intentions. :smallbiggrin:

So, RAI (as I define RAI) the game designers probably intended for armor to restrict one when swimming at least as much as it would restrict one when climbing or jumping. The original description in the OP that did not specifically mention swimming was thus, probably, an accidental omission. I am quite comfortable saying that were the game designers here on this forum they would all, to the last person, agree with me that it was an accidental omission, and that there should be an ACF penalty (indeed, a doubled ACF penalty) for swimming while wearing armour (or using a shield).

I will go further. I would rather play the game RAI (as I define it) than RAW. I would rather run the game RAI (as I define it) than RAW.

That said, I would also rather run the game with some of my house rules than either RAI or RAW. And depending on the GM, I would rather play the game with that GM's house rules than either RAI or RAW. So RAI is not sacred to me, just better than RAW. That is why sometimes the RAW discussions seem funny to me, and why I am glad I am an RAI guy, by my definition of RAI.

[Answerer]

Yes, RAI needs to be abolished. It is inaccurate and it is insulting. Your equivocation with definitions does not change this simple fact in my mind.

Moreover, even if you proved that what you think is what was intended, that doesn't mean anything since no one plays the game exactly as the designers expected. Plenty of very-stupid things are both RAW and (generally accepted, or probably, or something) RAI, and people don't use them.

Defend your own perspective with reason and evidence, not with the crutch of assertions that it's what the designers intended. It doesn't help your case and it implies that others' perspectives are invalid.

[Jarawara]

R.A.I. -- Rules as Intended.

Can we possibly know what the Rules as Intended might have been? Or is it simply a reasonable interpretation of the rule, the assumption that the designer would have taken logic into account when imagining the rule, but mistakenly missed one detail when writing the rule? Which interpretation of "RAI" is the correct one?

Well, being that terms like "RAI" have pretty much been invented by gamers like us, I think it's safe to claim that the interpretation of RAI is owned by us. Meaning, we can say what "RAI" is meant to imply.

And to carry this a bit further, to try to guess at what was intended by the designers of the term RAI... to guess the RAI on "RAI"... I think it's much more likely that they designed the term to mean what is logical and reasonable and simply missing from the written rule, rather than to limit the term to solely the few errors in the text where the author has come out and clarified what he really meant and yet inexplicably never corrected in later reprints. Why have a term to define a catagory of so few items?

So, to use the term "RAI" to mean "What is logical and reasonable" is in my view... logical and reasonable.

Ruling to my players: Swimming in heavy armor does indeed incur a penalty. And ironically, adding even more liquid to the situation, in the form of large offerings of Mountain Dew to the DM, does indeed counter that penalty.

[Answerer]

Except that the intent of using the term "RAI" is to have your argument carry extra weight beyond what it has been given by reason and evidence. It's an inherently "unfair" tactic in that you are asserting an advantage to your perspective that it does not have.

[Pigkappa]

Defend your own perspective with reason and evidence, not with the crutch of assertions that it's what the designers intended. It doesn't help your case and it implies that others' perspectives are invalid.
When a rule is extremely stupid and wrote in an unclear way, we can't say that it's self-evident that the ones who wrote it didn't mean that?

Roleplaying games aren't logical puzzles. You can't take each spell in the book, rename them as S_0, S_1, ..., S_n, remove energy types and call them E_0, E_1, ..., E_5, and say the game is the same. If you do things like that, you end up with a Saint Fiend of Possession (a friend of mine is playing that in a campaign in which the DM said that everything is allowed by RAW, just to show how nonsensical this is; and my Celerity+Teleport+Familiar based Wizard has finally forced the DM to make up new spells just to counter my character), with people who get their energy drained on purpose and gain an advantage from that, and similar things.

It just doesn't work that way; fluff is necessarily mixed with crunch. Of course definite rules are necessary to play the game without arguing too much, but the players should understand why the rules are this way and read them critically. Of course most of the rules make sense and don't need to be changed; and some of them are weird but involve magic so you can't apply common sense to them without some caution; but there are a few occasions in which they are just wrong, and the fact that the designers didn't spend the time to post an Errata because they're lazy shouldn't make my game different.

[Answerer]

See, most of the time that someone claims RAI, they don't even bother to claim it's self-evident. And most times, it's not so clear-cut as this case. And every time, it doesn't even matter. It's just a vaguely insulting and logically fallacious argument every time.

I never argued that anyone should play by strict RAW; you probably shouldn't, it would probably be terrible. But claiming to play "by RAI" is just flat-out inaccurate, and incredibly presumptuous. It would be far better, both for the purposes of discussion on these forums and for correctness in language, to say that you don't play by RAW in a given circumstance for any number of given reasons – as long as you give reasons.

But if you don't give reasons, and instead just say "well it's clearly RAI," you're just asserting your position's inherent superiority and effectively asserting the inferiority of any other position on the matter.

[Chronos]

But in this case, you can't use strict RAW, since the RAW is self-contradictory. In one place it says that Swim has an ACP; in another place it says that it doesn't. You have to decide which rule to use, which means interpreting what you think the likely intent was. If you're using RAI anyway, then it absolutely makes sense to debate which RAI is better.

[Jarawara]

I think you are perceiving insult where no insult is intended.


Except that the intent of using the term "RAI" is to have your argument carry extra weight beyond what it has been given by reason and evidence. It's an inherently "unfair" tactic in that you are asserting an advantage to your perspective that it does not have.

I do not intend to use "RAI" as extra weight in my arguments. I intend to use "RAI" as my interpretation of what seems logical to me. And I do presume self-evidency in my interpretation - but I wholly welcome a different interpretation. If I assume, using a classic example, that drowning does not heal damage to zero, then I will say that the rules did not intend drowning to be a fountain of healing, and I will assume I am correct. If another disagrees with me, they are free to state their differences, but will probably lose. If I say that armor proficiency allows for no penalty to swimming, another is free to disagree, and they might actually convince me - or at least force me to agree to a gentleman's agreement for purposes of that game, even if I were to disagree. I mean, rules have to be agreed on, after all.

In either case, I would use the term "RAI" and not intend either insult or to convey extra weight to my argument. I believe it is what the author intended, but I do not in any way belittle or dismiss your position should you disagree with me.



Still, I do see the merits of your argument. I waded into this fray because of your claim to define what "RAI" stood for, which effectively reduced the term to apply to only the tiniest handful of cases (where the author openly stated what he actually had meant, yet never bothered to officially correct). RAI, to me (and I presume to nearly everyone who's ever used it), is the assumption that their individual interpretation is also logically the one the author was intending, and that intent can be surmised by the context of the rules as a whole. It's not a 100% foolproof system, hence the number of online debates, but it is how the term was defined by the people who invented the term.

I simply wanted to defend the intended use of the term, and not allow it to be redefined into something unusable. I do concede that some, even many, might be unfairly using the term.

[Answerer]

I think you are perceiving insult where no insult is intended.
I never said one was intended. I said one was given, intended or not. Considering the ramifications of what one says and does is a very important responsibility in life. It is probably better, in general, not to intend something bad to happen, but something you do causes a bad thing, you must take some responsibility for your actions.


I do not intend to use "RAI" as extra weight in my arguments. I intend to use "RAI" as my interpretation of what seems logical to me.
Then it isn't as intended, it's as you like it. You are mislabeling it and implying that you have secret knowledge the rest of us do not by doing so.


In either case, I would use the term "RAI" and not intend either insult or to convey extra weight to my argument. I believe it is what the author intended, but I do not in any way belittle or dismiss your position should you disagree with me.
Then why use it at all?

Why not just say "this is what I think is a better idea than what's written, and here's why"? That is a sensible and rational approach to the myriad problems within the RAW. Whether or not it was intended by the designers makes no difference, and cannot be verified in any case.

The drowning thing and this ACP thing seem pretty obvious, but things have appeared obvious to people before without it actually being true. You have to also consider the possibility that the designers were perhaps just dumb (not in general, I mean, I mean as in made a dumb decision).

I mean, armor proficiency is not in any way worth a feat. How can we say for sure that the designers did not intend for the feat to have a small extra bonus on top of usual proficiency? It would have been good for them to point out that it is different, since the implication of the feat is that you're getting exactly what everyone else gets normally from their class, but there are plenty of cases where they haven't spelled that sort of thing out.

I don't actually suspect that this is the case, mind, I just think that it's not fair to assume that you know what the designers were thinking. You don't, I don't, and unless they come out and say what they were thinking, no one else does either. As such, attempting to bring it up really has no place in any rules debate.


Still, I do see the merits of your argument. I waded into this fray because of your claim to define what "RAI" stood for, which effectively reduced the term to apply to only the tiniest handful of cases (where the author openly stated what he actually had meant, yet never bothered to officially correct).
I never said that. I said that such cases were the only cases where RAI could be used reasonably, because you can actually back up the point. But if you have no evidence suggesting that the developers intended anything but what they wrote, "RAI" is a worthless and vaguely insulting thing to throw about. If nothing else, it's just lazy: it's letting a perceived authority stand in for an actual thesis.


RAI, to me (and I presume to nearly everyone who's ever used it), is the assumption that their individual interpretation is also logically the one the author was intending, and that intent can be surmised by the context of the rules as a whole. It's not a 100% foolproof system, hence the number of online debates, but it is how the term was defined by the people who invented the term.

I simply wanted to defend the intended use of the term, and not allow it to be redefined into something unusable. I do concede that some, even many, might be unfairly using the term.
I did not define it.

I stated that this use of the term is insulting.

[PrinceRenais]

I felt like joining the conversation, so all of the posters in this thread can be proud to have brought in another bystander to the ranks of the playground.

RAI is defined in many ways here, (http://www.acronymfinder.com/RAI.html) and the only relevant one is "Rules as Interpreted". That having been settled, This argument seems to have lost most of its purpose. Interpretations may vary as much as humans do. Arguments are bound to happen with conflicting opinions of the text in question, that's to be expected. When someone says "RAI", they normally intend to imply "Rules as I am Interpreting them.", although that implication is also interpretable. If you can't infer that, then I can see the possibility of offense in the case you disagree. But, if nobody is trying to insult you, it speaks poorly of yourself to make such enemies from nothing.
If you're intending to stick with RAI as "Rules as Intended", then I have nothing more to say to you about it.

In this case about swimming for the OP, I might say (if I were a DM) being proficient with the armor reduces the penalty for swimming to the base ACP instead of it being double. That is by no means mentioned in the rules, but it is clear there is a possible problem here. I think it's logical to think that even if you were familiar with some of the less mobile armors, it's going to likely be more difficult to swim than if you had it packed up in a backpack or something. I also think that you're less likely to succeed if you're not familiar with how to move in it, which explains the double-penalty.

[Answerer]

RAI is defined in many ways here, (http://www.acronymfinder.com/RAI.html) and the only relevant one is "Rules as Interpreted". [...] When someone says "RAI", they normally intend to imply "Rules as I am Interpreting them."
Were that this were the case; if it were, I'd have no problem.

But everyone I've seen post here has meant "Rules as Intended", not "Rules as Interpreted".

[PrinceRenais]

IIRC (Although, I'll be honest, I'm feeling too lazy to quote people atm), a number of them expressed their intended use was Rules as Interpreted. Thinking back though, I certainly see how you could take their intent as Rules as Intended, in context.

One thing is bugging me, though...
How is this argument relevant to the Original Post? It originated from it, yes, but the intentions of RAI aren't being asked about at the moment. Just pointing that out, though I do see your point.

[Answerer]

How is this argument relevant to the Original Post? It originated from it, yes, but the intentions of RAI aren't being asked about at the moment. Just pointing that out, though I do see your point.
I believe strongly in the nature of human discourse being one that meanders. So I tend to feel that the virtue of staying on-topic in a discussion forum is overrated.

Plus, and more relevantly, I didn't really want or expect it to turn into a big long discussion, and then when it did, I was hoping it would end soon. So starting a dedicated thread wasn't something I wanted to do.

[Jarawara]

Then why use it at all?

Why not just say "this is what I think is a better idea than what's written, and here's why"? That is a sensible and rational approach to the myriad problems within the RAW. Whether or not it was intended by the designers makes no difference, and cannot be verified in any case.

Because I could say "this is what I think is a better idea than what's written, and here's why"....

Or I could say "RAI".

And everyone I have ever met, excepting you, knows what that means and doesn't read it as anything other than the reasonable interpretation of what I believe the author had intended. RAI is shorthand, nothing more nothing less. An expedient way of saying so much more, and a way that (it seems to me) everyone understands.

So when you say...


I did not define it.

I stated that this use of the term is insulting.

... in fact you did redefine it. And then took offense to it!


Look, I understand your argument. I agree with alot of it. I have this old saying, a quiz really. Q: What is that which cannot be seen until pointed out? A: The obvious! So yeah, I understand that what is obvious to some is not going to be clear to others, and what is interpreted by some is not going to be the interpretation of others.

I'm just saying, don't go redefining terms that others have been using without problems for years, and then taking offense at your own definition.

Don't create an enemy where no enemy existed!

*~*

But then again, if PrinceRenais is correct, then RAI is Rules as Interpreted and the whole issue goes away. Personally, I have seen it as Rules as Intended for as long as I have know it, but Rules as Interpreted is just as valid and somewhat clearer.

We're off topic enough, and I have no valid opinion on the original topic. Peace be with you Answerer, I'm off to bed.

[candycorn]

So we can either live in a world where no one can even hope to guess what other people think (which lets out a lot the ability to research authors' intentions concerning any written work in history, btw, which would greatly lessen that discipline of knowledge) or we can live in a world where people can apply abilities like empathy and common sense to guess what other people are probably thinking, taking into account that we can't be 100% sure, but realizing that if we restrict ourselves to what is 100% sure we will not have much knowledge about anything.

I will live in the former world. I will certainly guess what designers intended. I will consider that knowledge, by my definition of knowledge.

No insult is intended. Other people can be incorrect without being bad people. :smallsmile:

Emphasis mine. You are welcome to guess what was intended.

The difference is that you are not stating your opinion of what is RAI as a guess, an opinion.

You are stating it as fact. That carries with it a burden to provide evidence.

"I think this is RAI" is fine. Nobody will fault you for that. After all, we can all think what we want.

"This is RAI" is a bit harder. You're now asserting with certainty that it is, but you have no actual evidence to back it up. In this case, RAI isn't "Rules As Intended". It's "Rules As i think they should be Interpreted".

Some statements are, by definition, opinions. "Oranges are awesome", for example. (they really are; so sweet and juicy and mmmm).

Others are verifiable, and thus, are not. "This was intended by John." "Obi-Wan lied to Luke about Anakin." "Drinking sodas slowly promotes tooth decay."

Your statement is the latter, yet you defend it as naught but a guess. It's fine if it's a guess to intent, but state it as such, rather than assuming a position of knowledge, with lack of supporting evidence.

[Particle_Man]

1) The fact that you feel insulted does not, by itself, make something an insult.

2) No insult was intended.

3) I will keep using RAI as "what I think the designers intend" and will consider it superior to RAW. If you consider that insulting, that is your problem not mine. I will not stop using RAI in this sense whether you find it insulting or not. If you can convince a moderator to ban me for using RAI in this sense, I will be extremely surprised.

4) In this particular case, it makes way more sense to me that the designers forgot to add the ACF penalty in the description of the feat (an error of omission) than that they mistakenly added a ACF penalty to swim (especially as they changed how swim and armor interact when changing from 3.0 to 3.5). It is far easier for someone to forget to put something in than to mistakenly put a brand new thing in. The skill table mention of swim doesn't look like a copy and paste error from an earlier edition, since swim was actually changed. The proficiency non-mention of swim actually does look like a copy and paste from 3.0 as it mentions "pick pocket" which is meant to be called "sleight of hand" in 3.5. Since swim penalties worked differently in 3.0 from 3.5, this could be explained as someone forgetting to update that sentence including various skills in the armor proficiencies. Most importantly, someone actually put doubled Swim check penalties on the skill table, with a special footnote just for Swim. They actually called it out as double the penalty under armour. I allow that people can forget things more easily than I allow that they would deliberately add things that don't apply.

5) Armor is heavy. Climbing and Jumping in armor is hard (as reflected both in the weight of the armor and in the ACF penalty for the armor). Swimming in the same armor is not less hard. Thus Swimming in the armor should have at least the same penalty. The designers would be aware of this and so I say the designers know this and I say that I know that the designers know this. I do not need telepathy in order to say that I know what others are thinking. In this case, I don't even need to speak to them. I can read what they wrote and note what is missing that should be there that game designers would know should be there.

6) So, with my fallible, but pretty good, ability to know how other humans think, I know that the designers intended for swim checks to have double the ACF penalty for people wearing armor, whether or not they are proficient in the armour. This is a fallible definition of knowledge and so I can be wrong, but it is still better than putting up my hands and saying "No one can ever know unless we talk to the designers".

7) Fallible Knowledge = Best Educated Guess. The Theory of Evolution is the scientific community's best educated guess and it is knowledge at the same time. There is a very small change the scientists are wrong about evolutions, but that would require so many things that we think we know to be wrong that we can safely say we know that evolution is true. There is a higher standard of knowledge (Descartes had such a standard), but it is functionally useless. I can use my best educated guess about the designers intentions (RAI) in the same way that scientists can use theirs on the theory of evolution and we can both call our conclusions knowledge.

[Answerer]

The theory of evolution is supported by literal mountains of evidence and over a century's worth of reason. Your assertion is supported by nothing. You simply assert, with absolutely no basis whatsoever, that your own opinion is better than mine because it is (as you somehow have divined) "what the designers actually intended to write when they didn't actually write it".

You are wrong and you should take better heed of the implications of your statements. I don't merely take offense, I'm pointing out the offense that is already there – you are stating that others' opinions have less merit than yours do, on no basis whatsoever other than that they disagree with you. That is an insult, to anyone. If you don't mean to say that, then you shouldn't say that.

[Glyde]

I can't help but make the observation that you're assuming he's intending to make his argument better than others by stating RAI (and thus being insulting). Isn't that exactly what you're condemning him for? You aren't him, how could you know his intention by using that term?

[Answerer]

As I've said, my basis for this is that the term has no other purpose. What the developers intended doesn't really actually mean anything in terms of a debate, certainly no more than RAW does, and it certainly does not absolve him of having to defend his positions. He is making a claim to a certain advantage of his position, without justifying that claim. He is further refusing to reduce his claim to something accurate and reasonable. So yes, these are my reasons and evidence that he is looking to prop up his position.

[Particle_Man]

I think I did defend why I can know what other people are thinking. I assume they know about armour and weight and swimming and stuff like that. That is a safe assumption, especially as they have dealt with water and weight and swimming in 3.0, so I know that they have thought about this.

Thus I can use the reasons and evidence (as I have) *and* say it is what the designers intentions were, based on the idea that they, too, use reasons and evidence and are trying to make a game that in certain ways matches what would happen in real life (like if a real human wearing heavy armour tried to swim). Thus I am safe in using the term RAI, without insult. I can use the very reasons and evidence and logic that you say are good to make that further assumption. The game designers are not Martians. They are not species 8471 (or whatever it was). They are not the Borg. They are human beings, like myself.

Knowing what others are thinking using logic and empathy is a human skill that I and others have. Psychologists do this. Actors do this. Historians do this. Detectives do this. Police do this. I can do this too. It is a type of inductive logic, using reasoning to discover the best explanation on the face of the available evidence (you know, like that footnote 2 on the skill table).

I also know when my cat is hungry based on his meowing at me in the morning, and he never wrote a word. Are you going to doubt that too?

[Answerer]

I think I did defend why I can know what other people are thinking. I assume they know about armour and weight and swimming and stuff like that. That is a safe assumption, especially as they have dealt with water and weight and swimming in 3.0, so I know that they have thought about this.
Yes, you did – eventually.

But you also assert that you play by RAI in general, which is utterly impossible. If you had said "I think it was RAI that those penalties apply here" I wouldn't have said anything. But you opened it up to broader situations that are not so clear-cut as this.

This is a trivial case and I'm not debating this particular case. There are very few cases of rules issues where one can say the intent is as likely as it is here. I'm objecting to the term and its use in general, not to the argument about what the intent was here.


At any rate, I give up. Neither of us has said anything new in many, many posts. I'll continue to maintain my judgment of your actions, just as you will of mine, I'm sure, and we'll both just have to live with that.

[Particle_Man]

Fair enough. I will learn to live with the fact that someone on the internet doubts my awesome abilities to know what others are thinking. :smallsmile: