RAW: Official Definition?

[Malachei]

On these and other forums, we're often using Rules as Written (RAW) as a term, for instance for rules clarification, such as done in the Simple Q&A. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230084) However, the term RAW is usually not further defined. So we do know the abbreviation's meaning, but little more?

Is there an official definition of RAW by the publisher of 3.5 D&D?

[TheOOB]

(R)ules (A)s (W)ritten. That is pretty much the beginning and the end of the definition, RAW is the rules as they are written in the book, and exactally how they are written. It's not a term made by the publisher, it's a simple fact, a state of being.

It's generally accepted that Errata can change RAW, as errata is basically an official rewrite of some section of the book.

FAQs and Word of God(that is something written by one of the authors), don't edit RAW, though they can clarify it, or make an argument for RAI(Rules and Intended, which, due to poor wording or conflicts with other rules, can differ from RAW)

Customer support Q&A's are generally just considered wrong.

[Malachei]

This is obvious. Do you think the term is unambiguous?

You've used the terms "accepted" and "considered", which indicates judgment is applied.

Let's have a closer look:

For instance, I'd consider the full rules book text RAW, while there is at least one other person who says RAW is only the crunch. I don't agree, because crunch and flavor-text are often deeply integrated and the publishers do not tell us: "crunch starts/stops here". As such, there is no fail-safe way of telling crunch from flavor-text, at least not in all books.

Dragon magazine is labeled "100% official content". Does that make it RAW?


I find it interesting that we use a term over and over again in sometimes heated debates on the rules, and it seems the term is actually not unambiguously defined.

[Flickerdart]

Dragon magazine is labeled "100% official content". Does that make it RAW?
That doesn't make any sense. A book can't be RAW. A book contains rules. An interpretation of those rules can be RAW, or RAI, or something else. But asking whether a book itself is RAW makes absolutely no sense.

[Ceaon]

RAW (Rules As Written), abbreviation
1. The rules as they are written down in a source, without further interpretation, adjustment, addition or removal.
Compare: RAI, Homebrew

Edit: crunch as it is written in a source is RAW. Fluff is never RAW unless it is also integrated with the crunch (example: druids not wearing metal armor), since fluff is not a rule, it is a description. (There is even a rule on, for example changing a spell's fluff in the PH).

[Thurbane]

Yeah, in regards to Dragon, there isn't really an argument of RAW, more if it's considered "official content"...and that largely depends on individual interpretation of that particular phrase.

If everything written was completely unambiguous, there would be no corporate lawyers. Even carefully worded legal/business documents have some room for interpretation, and WotC game rules are nowhere near as carefully written as most of those.

I work with various Australian Standards in my job, and even though these are most definitely written in "legalese", I have come across numerous instances where they are quite ambiguous, and even contradict themselves.

The Q&A by RAW thread demonstrates this nicely - while there is usually a consensus regarding a particular rule, sometimes it is debated vehemently with (at least) two opposing outcomes.

A great example of this is the Cunning Strike ability of the Factotum (Dungeonscape, p.17). It's hotly debated as to whether you can "nova", using as many Inspiration Points as you have to increase the bonus damage dice, or whether you a restricted to a single Inspiration Point (and 1d6 damage).

[Ashtagon]

That doesn't make any sense. A book can't be RAW. A book contains rules. An interpretation of those rules can be RAW, or RAI, or something else. But asking whether a book itself is RAW makes absolutely no sense.

:smallconfused: There's a job waiting for you in law.

[Rejusu]

I'm not even sure as to why this is a question. RAW is what it is. There's nothing really ambiguous about it. It's the Rules As Written, doesn't get simpler than that. In regards to fluff vs crunch, the main reason why fluff isn't RAW is because fluff isn't rules. It's the RULES as written, RAW isn't something that covers all the text in a book. In regards to Dragon magazine content I'll echo the above that a source can't be RAW, only what's written in it.

[Kurald Galain]

This is obvious. Do you think the term is unambiguous?

You've used the terms "accepted" and "considered", which indicates judgment is applied.

Rules are, by their very nature, sometimes ambiguous. It is not uncommon for two rules to contradict, or for one rule to have multiple valid interpretations. On forums, people tend to respond by labeling the interpretation they like (usually the one that results in stronger characters) "RAW", and label the other interpretations "Just A Houserule". That doesn't make them right though.

See also this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=240444).

[Aharon]

I'm not even sure as to why this is a question. RAW is what it is. There's nothing really ambiguous about it. It's the Rules As Written, doesn't get simpler than that. In regards to fluff vs crunch, the main reason why fluff isn't RAW is because fluff isn't rules. It's the RULES as written, RAW isn't something that covers all the text in a book. In regards to Dragon magazine content I'll echo the above that a source can't be RAW, only what's written in it.

The problem is that the distinction between fluff and crunch isn't always clear. The OP was probably spawned by a recent discussion where he referred to text from the PGtF - namely the introduction, which states that the material is available to FR-campaigns and characters. This was regarded as non-rules text by some other posters.

There's also sometimes rules-relevant information in sections which mainly contain fluff - i.e., the information that the Demon Lords are unique isn't part of their stat-blocks, but rules-relevant because it makes them non-targettable by Gate.

[Malachei]

I'm not even sure as to why this is a question. RAW is what it is. There's nothing really ambiguous about it. It's the Rules As Written, doesn't get simpler than that. In regards to fluff vs crunch, the main reason why fluff isn't RAW is because fluff isn't rules. It's the RULES as written, RAW isn't something that covers all the text in a book. In regards to Dragon magazine content I'll echo the above that a source can't be RAW, only what's written in it.

I'm really surprised. Do you really think it is not ambiguous? Then please point out to me where exactly (!) in the various rule books crunch is separated from fluff.

And where do the authors say that what is and what isn't rules?

Who gets to decide which part of a rule book's text is to be labeled as "fluff", and which is to be labeled "crunch"? Obviously, the publisher has not done this. We are doing it, each of us, individually. Though we may agree with each other 90% of the time, the rest would still be ambiguous.

And is there a rule to deciding what is a rule, and what is not? Does it have to be in a table? Does it have to involve a number, or a die? Is italicized text fluff?

Take, for instance, classes in the PHB: they have a section "Game Rule Information". Does this imply that everything not labeled game rule information is not a rule? Of course not. Classes in some other books do not have this, but a section called "Class Features". Is everything outside class features fluff? How about other parts of the PHB and other books?

I think it is more complicated than you claim it to be, and not all that unambiguous.


That doesn't make any sense. A book can't be RAW. A book contains rules. An interpretation of those rules can be RAW, or RAI, or something else. But asking whether a book itself is RAW makes absolutely no sense.

Please forgive the momentary lapse of precision. The sentence "Dragon magazine is labeled "100% official content". Does that make it RAW?" is, of course, not correct, and should read "Dragon magazine is labeled "100% official content". Does that make its text RAW?"

Thank you for focusing on the detail. :smallbiggrin:


The Q&A by RAW thread demonstrates this nicely - while there is usually a consensus regarding a particular rule, sometimes it is debated vehemently with (at least) two opposing outcomes.

Thank you for pointing this out. To me, it seems obvious that any reading of a text, whether it be literature, law, or game rules, will (not always, but frequently) result in different interpretations. I am surprised that people actually think RAW is unambiguous both in its meaning and its content.


Rules are, by their very nature, sometimes ambiguous. It is not uncommon for two rules to contradict, or for one rule to have multiple valid interpretations. On forums, people tend to respond by labeling the interpretation they like (usually the one that results in stronger characters) "RAW", and label the other interpretations "Just A Houserule". That doesn't make them right though.

I agree, and I must say that my impression is that in many discussions, it is not about clarifying, but about being right. Under this premise, "This is RAW" is often "This is my preferred reading of RAW".

[Keneth]

What is RAW? Baby don't hurt me. Don't hurt me no more. :smallbiggrin:

RAW is not unambiguous, there's plenty of disputes, often influenced by fluff or RAI. That said, everything that is not explicitly given as flavor text is considered RAW. That of course includes all content released in official books/accessories. As for Dragon and Dungeon magazines, although they're endorsed by WotC, they're often not considered equal in strength to the rules found in books. That doesn't mean it's not RAW, it just means that it can't override the rules in books as is the case with errata for instance.

[Malachei]

I think what you are saying makes a lot of sense.


That said, everything that is not explicitly given as flavor text is considered RAW.

The problem being: When is flavor text apparent, and when not? Because at one point, we will start to discuss which part is flavor and which part is not, and then we have a boost of ambiguity again.

In the absence of a clear designation of flavor text, I'd say the full rules book text is RAW.

[Keneth]

There are sometimes clear indicators of flavor text such as the short description of spells in italics (in Spell Compendium for instance) or sometimes the rules are nothing but flavor (such as the setting-dependent descriptions of races). Of course there are cases when the lines are blurred but usually it's very apparent what is there merely for cosmetic value and what the rules actually are.

[Malachei]

There are sometimes clear indicators of flavor text such as the short description of spells in italics (in Spell Compendium for instance) or sometimes the rules are nothing but flavor (such as the setting-dependent descriptions of races). Of course there are cases when the lines are blurred but usually it's very apparent what is there merely for cosmetic value and what the rules actually are.

That is exactly my point. We do have indicators, but not throughout. It is far from unambiguous.

[Keneth]

That's why forums exist, so we can argue the ambiguity. :smallbiggrin:

[Kurald Galain]

That is exactly my point. We do have indicators, but not throughout. It is far from unambiguous.

It's a design principle. In most RPG books, the fluff is its own crunch. For example, if there's a spell that lights your hand on fire, you don't have to argue about whether it sheds light or can ignite wood: it's fire, and that's what fire does. It's only late in 3.5 and in all of 4E that a clear difference is made between fluff and crunch, leading to the approach that fluff can be changed to whatever you like, and spells only do exactly what the rules text says, nothing more.

I'm not saying either is better or worse, but it is clearly a different way of designing a game.

[Taelas]

Fluff is just window dressing.

Druids can't wear metal armor. The reason why they can't is fluff. The fact that they can't is a mechanic.

Fluff isn't rules. It's the setting you're playing in. If your DM doesn't want particular fluff in his game, but doesn't mind the mechanics, nothing is changed rules-wise by changing the fluff. If he likes the fluff but doesn't like the mechanics and he changes them, he's not playing by RAW.

If a piece of fluff description has a mechanical effect, the mechanical effect is part of the rules, while the fluff description itself isn't... because ultimately, fluff doesn't matter in the context of RAW.

RAW is only meaningful in a discussion about the rules. Whether or not you change the fluff really doesn't matter as long as you don't change the mechanics.

[Amphetryon]

Fluff has no direct impact on the rules in play; crunch does. If all Elves in your campaign have fat, furry, green bodies, that changes nothing of how they interact with the rules. If all the Elves in your campaign are affected by the Sleep (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/sleep.htm) spell, this does change something of how they interact with the rules.

When folks around here talk about the RAW, they're not trying to address those aspects of the written text that have no direct impact on the rules in play in any example that I can recall. If you can point to examples (plural) to the contrary, please do.

I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here, if the above isn't addressing your concern.

[Kurald Galain]

Fluff has no direct impact on the rules in play; crunch does.

Of course, but that means that a lot of flavor text is in fact crunch, because it affects the rules in play. For example, if the barbarian's rage ability was worded as "you scream and charge forward" then that tells me that this will by default alert any nearby enemies that can hear the scream.

Likewise, the reason why druids can't wear metal armor may become important if I have a druid captive and decide to put metal chains on him.

[Amphetryon]

Of course, but that means that a lot of flavor text is in fact crunch, because it affects the rules in play. For example, if the barbarian's rage ability was worded as "you scream and charge forward" then that tells me that this will by default alert any nearby enemies that can hear the scream.

Likewise, the reason why druids can't wear metal armor may become important if I have a druid captive and decide to put metal chains on him.

Note that your examples are couched in the realm of the theoretical. "If" and "may" are important aspects of your presentation.

[Kurald Galain]

Note that youre examples are couched in the realm of the theoretical. "If" and "may" are important aspects of your presentation.

Not at all.

For example, look at inspiring effects. 3E has the bard's countersong ability (among others), whereas 4E has the warlord's inspiring word (which is explicitly non-magical). Both have the flavor text that they rely on words.

So what would happen if your target is deafened or unconscious, or you're under a silence effect? 3E's approach is very clear: you're trying to affect people with words, and if they can't hear you, that doesn't work. 4E's approach is also very clear: the power says it heals people, and therefore it does no matter what.

Two different design principles. One treats its flavor text as fluff, the other as crunch.

[Amphetryon]

Not at all.

For example, look at inspiring effects. 3E has the bard's countersong ability (among others), whereas 4E has the warlord's inspiring word (which is explicitly non-magical). Both have the flavor text that they rely on words.

So what would happen if your target is deafened or unconscious, or you're under a silence effect? 3E's approach is very clear: you're trying to affect people with words, and if they can't hear you, that doesn't work. 4E's approach is also very clear: the power says it heals people, and therefore it does no matter what.

Two different design principles. One treats its flavor text as fluff, the other as crunch.
1) That's a different example than either of the ones which I noted were theoretical.

2) Mixing and matching editions will quite regularly produce differing results for similar scenarios, given that they're essentially different games under a similar name.

2) Note that the crunch (what actually happens when the target cannot hear you) is specified in your second paragraph above. It doesn't leave the result up to the fluff. You can change the fluff so that the Bard/Warlord is dancing in both examples, rather than singing/talking, and the crunch (what happens when the target can't hear you) is still specified. I'll grant that this crunch is wonky in 3.X in this corner case, but perhaps the dance relies on taps on your bard's shoes or something. It's not like this is the only corner case where the crunch gets wonky.

[Ashtagon]

Not at all.

For example, look at inspiring effects. 3E has the bard's countersong ability (among others), whereas 4E has the warlord's inspiring word (which is explicitly non-magical). Both have the flavor text that they rely on words.

So what would happen if your target is deafened or unconscious, or you're under a silence effect? 3E's approach is very clear: you're trying to affect people with words, and if they can't hear you, that doesn't work. 4E's approach is also very clear: the power says it heals people, and therefore it does no matter what.

Two different design principles. One treats its flavor text as fluff, the other as crunch.

Not really.

3e has a keyword for many abilities, called "language-dependant". This means that the subject must be able to hear and understand the caster. Since an unconscious character can't really do that (*), it doesn't work on him. This is pure crunch in 3e, not fluff.

(*) Here I expect someone to point out coma patients responding to outside stimuli. Well, 3e defines unconsciousness differently from sleeping in the first case, and second, those coma patients aren't reacting to that stimuli rapidly and instantly; nor is that stimulation a single instant lasting six seconds or less.

[Kurald Galain]

This is pure crunch in 3e, not fluff.

Yes, that's the point. 3E treats flavor text as crunch (at least most of the time). It doesn't have to be a keyword either; if it is noted anywhere in an ability description that it requires the subject to hear you, then it requires the subject to hear you.

[truemane]

I'm really surprised. Do you really think it is not ambiguous?

You're complicating the issue unnecessarily. The term "RAW" isn't, in itself, a value judgement or an opinion or an argument or a designation of any kind. It just means what's on the page. The term itself is completely and entirely unambiguous. What uses you put it to, on the other hand, may not be.

Is Dragon Magazine RAW? Of course it is. It contains rules. They're written. So, when discussing the impact of any rules in an issue of Dragon Magazine, you can discuss them in terms of RAW (what the rules SAY) and RAI (what the rules SHOULD say). At no point in this discussion is there any need to decide whether these rules are official or not. The term RAW doesn't in any way refer to the authority of the rule in question. It just means what's on the page.

I could sit down and write a rule on a paper napkin in blue crayon, and then have a spirited debate about it in terms of RAW and RAI.

Same with fluff and crunch. It's an interesting debate, but it's irrelevant in terms of your original question. Anyone can decide for themselves what, precisely, constitutes a rule. We can debate that one all day (and in fact we seem to be doing just that). And once you decide something is a rule (however you define that term), it can then be discussed in terms of RAW (what it says) vs. RAI (what it should say).

The definition of the term is not a contentious issue. Only it's application.

[Jarawara]

Yeah I agree with truemane. The definition of RAW is unambiguous. Maybe the rules are screwy and unclear, but the term 'RAW' is absolute.

Consider the theoretical example of a spell description for a specialist mage. The rule reads: "This spell does not work unless the mage is."

Is... what? Well that's clear as thick mud. Borders on useless. But regardless of how unclear the rule is, there is no denying what the RAW is. The rule, as written, is "This spell does not work unless the mage is."

Now people might get into a debate on what the Rule as Intended was. After all, this was in the section describing a Wizard who specializes in underwater casting. (Call him a 'GlubBlubist'.) So one might assume that the RAI is "This spell does not work unless the mage is underwater."

Or another might point out that GlubBlubists can affect things above water, and so to them the RAI must be "This spell does not work unless the mage is *in* water." You know, at least an inch or so, to allow the mage to connect with his chosen element.

A rules lawyer might point out that there is nothing in the crunch preventing dry-land casting, so they reason that the rule is written as intended. As long as the caster *is*, as in, *exists*, then the spell will work. Rules-lawyers should all be killed on sight, I say - but I do see this as a possible interpretation.

But the Rules as Written? No, the RAW is clear. "This spell does not work unless the caster is."

*~*~*

So... going back to your original post - what exactly were you asking? Are you asking if there was some place to get official rulings on the unclear parts of RAW? Or were you asking if fluff is considered part of RAW? Or were you asking what sources are considered core and what is unofficial and optional? Or am I still misunderstanding your question entirely?

[Flickerdart]

Please forgive the momentary lapse of precision. The sentence "Dragon magazine is labeled "100% official content". Does that make it RAW?" is, of course, not correct, and should read "Dragon magazine is labeled "100% official content". Does that make its text RAW?"

Thank you for focusing on the detail. :smallbiggrin:

That still makes no sense. All text, technically, is RAW, because it is written. Whether or not the text is official also makes no difference - even crappy D&D Wiki homebrew still has a RAW interpretation.

[Answerer]

The rules written in a Dragon magazine, or in a piece of homebrew, are rules... that are written. So of course, they are Rules As Written. They're just rules.

They're not in play in most games, which means their meaning is irrelevant, but they definitely are rules that are written.

This thread confuses me greatly. The concept strikes me as extremely simple and the OP's questions, to me, belie some other misunderstanding somewhere that is not being directly addressed by the question asked. I do not know what that would be, however.

[Rejusu]

I'm really surprised. Do you really think it is not ambiguous? Then please point out to me where exactly (!) in the various rule books crunch is separated from fluff.

And where do the authors say that what is and what isn't rules?

Who gets to decide which part of a rule book's text is to be labeled as "fluff", and which is to be labeled "crunch"? Obviously, the publisher has not done this. We are doing it, each of us, individually. Though we may agree with each other 90% of the time, the rest would still be ambiguous.

And is there a rule to deciding what is a rule, and what is not? Does it have to be in a table? Does it have to involve a number, or a die? Is italicized text fluff?

Take, for instance, classes in the PHB: they have a section "Game Rule Information". Does this imply that everything not labeled game rule information is not a rule? Of course not. Classes in some other books do not have this, but a section called "Class Features". Is everything outside class features fluff? How about other parts of the PHB and other books?

I think it is more complicated than you claim it to be, and not all that unambiguous.

I never said that the distinction between fluff and crunch wasn't ambiguous. I said that the term RAW isn't ambiguous. It's exactly what it says on the tin. The only ambiguity is what separates crunch from fluff, but there's no ambiguity in what RAW is.

I think what you're looking for is not a definition of what RAW is, you're looking for a definition of what makes a rule.

[Namfuak]

As for the druid argument:



Druids are proficient with light and medium armor but are prohibited from wearing metal armor; thus, they may wear only padded, leather, or hide armor. (A druid may also wear wooden armor that has been altered by the ironwood spell so that it functions as though it were steel. See the ironwood spell description) Druids are proficient with shields (except tower shields) but must use only wooden ones.

A druid who wears prohibited armor or carries a prohibited shield is unable to cast druid spells or use any of her supernatural or spell-like class abilities while doing so and for 24 hours thereafter.


The definition of this, as the rules are written (presuming that it is not contradicted by some other set of rules, but I don't believe this ever is), that a druid is prohibited from wearing metal armor and shields, and the penalty for wearing metal armor is that they lose spellcasting for 24 hours. The reason they cannot wear metal armor is irrelevant to the mechanics of a druid who wears metal armor. As for the chain argument, this clearly says armor, whereas a chain would at best be an improvised weapon and would more likely be an item in the druid's inventory, neither of which is metal armor of shields. It gets more murky if you use two-weapon defense to get a shield bonus to AC from another weapon, but that's another issue.

[Malachei]

That still makes no sense. All text, technically, is RAW, because it is written. Whether or not the text is official also makes no difference - even crappy D&D Wiki homebrew still has a RAW interpretation.

I assumed you are aware you are in a 3.0/3.5 D&D and d20 forum, in which the term RAW is used in context and usually refers to rules issued by the respective publishers. Please note the OP specifically asks for an official 3.5 D&D definition of RAW. Not enough context?

[TheOOB]

Technically, any rules written down can be considered RAW, as they are in fact, rules that are written, ergo Rules as Written.

Naturally, we tend to only care about official rules, as considering unofficial or homebrew content in the public setting of the forums would be silly and pointless.

This means that Dragon Magazine can in fact be considered RAW, for Dragon Magazine, but that doesn't mean everyone uses it. Since many/most people don't use Dragon Magazine, we usually don't include it our discussions unless the OP specifically brings it up. Further, while there is no hierarchy set in stone, when rules conflict we generally take the rules from sourcebooks over magazines/web articals, and the core rulebooks over sourcebooks(except in cases where the new rule is specifically noted as overwritting the old, in which case there will likely be errata.) This is because we, as a group, tend to prefer sources that are a)more universal(more people have them), and b)better edited(no book goes through the editing process the core books do).

As for fluff and RAW, fluff isn't RAW kinda by definition. Everything you need to know about RAW is right in the name: Rules As Written. Fluff does not contain game rules, ergo, it can't be RAW. D&D even specifically mentions that much of it's fluff is not affected by game rules(notably in spell descriptions). It is true that there can be problems when it's hard to tell where the fluff ends and the rules begin, but fluff is not game rules.

D&D, as a general rules, tends to have fairly well defined rules, and most the rules are written as such so that there is only one valid interpretation of said rules. The trick is to just read the rules, and don't try to make any inferences or assumptions. I've heard the argument before that bracers of armor provide touch AC, which they do not, and a strict reading of the rules enforces that.

However, many rules are not as clear, they may be ambiguous and contradictory. These are where rules debates come in, where we try to decide the best interpretation. Sometimes, through extended logic and research, we can find the RAW answer, but sometimes the true RAW answer will elude us until when and if errata comes out.

RAW is a lot like law. The definition of law is clear, but there are many kinds of law, and with so much it can get confusing at times. That's why we have lawyers and legal scholars.

[Water_Bear]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Flickerdart]

I assumed you are aware you are in a 3.0/3.5 D&D and d20 forum, in which the term RAW is used in context and usually refers to rules issued by the respective publishers. Please note the OP specifically asks for an official 3.5 D&D definition of RAW. Not enough context?
You appear confused.

RAW, Rules as Written, is an interpretation of the rules as written down in a book. Whether or not those rules are official doesn't change the fact that they have a RAW. The only thing that officialness changes is whether or not they are rules.

[Ashtagon]

I assumed you are aware you are in a 3.0/3.5 D&D and d20 forum, in which the term RAW is used in context and usually refers to rules issued by the respective publishers. Please note the OP specifically asks for an official 3.5 D&D definition of RAW. Not enough context?

At this point, I feel I must ask you what the 3.5 D&D definition of "enough context" is.

[truemane]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Malachei]

You appear confused.

RAW, Rules as Written, is an interpretation of the rules as written down in a book. Whether or not those rules are official doesn't change the fact that they have a RAW. The only thing that officialness changes is whether or not they are rules.

You appear to misunderstand the question.

I have asked for an official 3.5 D&D definition of RAW, i.e. has WOTC used the term and explained their understanding / definition of it.

On these forums, people often refer to RAW. Obviously, this requires an understanding of what is part of RAW, and what is not. As should be obvious from reading the OP, we're not talking about the RAW in terms of 3rd party d20, Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu or your favorite board game, but about the RAW of 3.5 D&D.

In terms of Dragon Magazine, the question is whether the label "100% official content" makes it part of the 3.5 D&D RAW.

Is it that hard to grasp?

{{Scrubbed}}

On this forum (and other forums), we are using a term that has not been defined at all, apparently not by the publisher, and apparently not by all the people arguing "based on RAW"

Apparently, there is a working rule-of-thumb definition, which people adapt according to personal preference.

We're discussing about all kinds of questions here, so why not talk about whether one of the most widely used terms in gaming is actually well-defined.

And no, defining something via itself is not a necessarily a helpful definition: Simply repeating what the abbreviation stands for over and over does not help, nor does it add depth to the discussion. That RAW is the abbreviation for Rules as Written, yes, we all knew that before. And yes, it is obvious that for to be written, a rule has to be in some form of text. We all knew that before, as well. But when using the term in the Playground, what does it exactly mean? Does it usually refer to everything published by WOTC and does this usually include Dragon Magazine? Is there material usually not part of the common usage of RAW? Is it the full rules book text? If not, is it ambiguous?

[Flickerdart]

In terms of Dragon Magazine, the question is whether the label "100% official content" makes it part of the 3.5 D&D RAW.
RAW is not an entity. You can't have something be a "part" of the "3.5 D&D RAW". All rules, official or otherwise, have their own RAW. This is the part that you do not appear to be understanding.

[Answerer]

It's not so much "hard to grasp" so much as "completely incorrect."

RAW doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. It just doesn't. So no, there is nothing, WotC-published or otherwise, that delineates what you're looking for, because what you're looking for is not even a thing.

All rules can be interpreted as written. As long as the rules source in question is in play, you can interpret its RAW. Whether or not a given source is in play depends on the group and the game.

For the record, the only things that Wizards has ever directly stated "must" be in play are Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monster Manual. If you don't have those three, according to Wizards, you aren't playing 3.5. Those are the "Core" of the game. Everything else is "Supplemental." What supplements see play, what houserules are in effect, hell in some cases whether or not all of Core is being used (actually, most cases, since most broken crap is in those three books), all depends on the group in question.


This forum seems to generally expect that, barring specific notation to the contrary, all Wizards-published books are in play.

[Ashtagon]

As far as I am aware, no games company has used the term RAW, or rules as written, anywhere in an official statement. Individual writers who happen to have worked for these companies may have used the term informally, but that would not make it a company point.

So we are left with the dictionary definition. Which to me seems fairly unambiguous.

A tangential question which you seem to be touching on is "which rule books and sources should be considered canon for my game?" The answer to this is "whatever you want it to be. It's your game." However, what one person considers canon for his game has no bearing on what anyone else considers canon for their game.

But every rule book ever written is "rules as written". It says so right there in the OED (that's like an SRD for the English language).

[Malachei]

RAW is not an entity. You can't have something be a "part" of the "3.5 D&D RAW". All rules, official or otherwise, have their own RAW. This is the part that you do not appear to be understanding.

I think this is a misunderstanding, and I hope this makes it clear to you:

The term RAW is used by members of the Playground (and other forums) to refer to something.

If they refer to a specific topic (e.g. Ice Assassin text -> RAW in Frostburn), then it is obvious what the term covers.

If they refer to a more general topic (e.g. spells in D&D -> RAW in, let's see...), then it is not obvious what the term covers.

General statements such as "Nowhere in the RAW..." do not specifically refer to one piece of writing. They refer to a canon of multiple individual sources.

As such, RAW is, in part, used to refer to an entity.

[Flickerdart]

I'm not sure you're making any sense. If you are not referring to a specific rule, then there isn't a RAW, because there is no rule. You can't have RAW for something that doesn't exist.

Your confusion seems to stem from an inability to differentiate between rules, and RAW, which is an interpretation of a rule. RAW can have no canonicity by definition, because you can apply it to anything. It's rules that have canonicity.

[Taelas]

You appear to misunderstand the question.

I have asked for an official 3.5 D&D definition of RAW, i.e. has WOTC used the term and explained their understanding / definition of it.
The question makes no sense. Wizards of the Coast has never used 'RAW' as a term, ever. It was made up by the community for resolving rules disputes.


On these forums, people often refer to RAW. Obviously, this requires an understanding of what is part of RAW, and what is not. As should be obvious from reading the OP, we're not talking about the RAW in terms of 3rd party d20, Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu or your favorite board game, but about the RAW of 3.5 D&D.
You seem to completely misunderstand what RAW means.

RAW is Rules As Written. Period. That's all it means. The literal rules, as they are written. The thing is, content was updated all the time. What is RAW in one book can be overwritten by errata or primary source rules (which is always the most recently published material). That doesn't mean it isn't RAW, it's just not the most up-to-date rule. We don't bother saying that, because it's generally understood to be the case. It's easier to just write, "The RAW says," then quote the most recent version of the rule in question.


In terms of Dragon Magazine, the question is whether the label "100% official content" makes it part of the 3.5 D&D RAW.

Is it that hard to grasp?
It's official content. That makes it part of the 3.5E rules. For example, if any 3.0 material is updated to 3.5E in a Dragon Magazine, the Dragon Magazine content is the most 'correct' content. If a feat is posted in a source book, and a Dragon Magazine posted later updates that feat, the updated version is the correct one.

[razark]

General statements such as "Nowhere in the RAW..." do not specifically refer to one piece of writing. They refer to a canon of multiple individual sources.
RAW refers to the rules as written in whatever set of books/sources you are using at the time. If you're using PHB, DMG, and MM, "RAW" means the text of those books. If You're using Bob's Big Book of Houserules, "RAW" refers to the rules as written in Bob's book.

[Namfuak]

I think this is a misunderstanding, and I hope this makes it clear to you:

The term RAW is used by members of the Playground (and other forums) to refer to something.

If they refer to a specific topic (e.g. Ice Assassin text -> RAW in Frostburn), then it is obvious what the term covers.

If they refer to a more general topic (e.g. spells in D&D -> RAW in, let's see...), then it is not obvious what the term covers.

General statements such as "Nowhere in the RAW..." do not specifically refer to one piece of writing. They refer to a canon of multiple individual sources.

As such, RAW is, in part, used to refer to an entity.

You are right that there is an entity, which for the sake of most discussions within these forums is approximately SRD+Core+Supplements+Dragon Magazine (with disclaimers that Dragon Magazine may not be accepted in your game), which constitutes the rules that are to be interpreted, or argued by "RAW." However, if a homebrew class is also included in that discussion, the rules of the homebrew class are part of the rules "entity" for the sake of that discussion, and the rules as written for that class are, well, RAW.

Obviously, if I say "As per the rules as written in the SRD, elves are immune to magical sleep," most people would agree that, according to the official rules of D&D 3.5 (which most agree SRD are), elves are immune to magical sleep, because SRD is considered to be the most up to date ruleset. If I abbreviate that sentence to "By RAW, elves are immune to magical sleep," others will do one of two things - they will either accept it, or ask me to name a source. Even if I don't name a source but everyone accepts it, then for the sake of that particular argument it is RAW.

If I were to say instead "Dragon Magazine released a feat in issue (don't remember) called chicken-infested which by RAW allows such and such shenanigans," it does not mean that if someone else does not allow Dragon Magazine in their games that it is not still a rule as written or that I can use that feat for shenanigans (assuming the shenanigans are rules-legal), so long as I allow the feat in my game (or build, if that was what the thread was about).

One murky issue that needs to be adjudicated by your DM is if you are using rules from older books that are updated in newer books that you are not using, which version of the rules should be used. The most important that comes to mind is whether a core-only game should include the stipulation in CWar that you have to meet the prerequisites for a prestige class in order to benefit from it at all, not just to advance in it (there is further discussion of RAW as to whether or not that rule even includes prestige classes that aren't from CWar, but I don't think that discussion is really helpful for this particular thread).

I hope this answers the question.

[Arundel]

RAW isn't an object as much as it is a way of reading. Asking if Dragon Magazine is RAW is very similar to asking if The Judging Eye is speed reading. The question itself is nonsensical. It is like asking who wrote the Elder Scrolls.

Maybe this can be solved with examples. Lets try some from one of my favorite threads (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=214988).

The Tower Shield Paradox

Hide behind your tower shield, to gain total cover for you and your equipment. Your tower shield now has total cover.

Now, obviously the design intent for a tower shield is not to allow it to enter a state of quantum flux, but lets looks at the rules governing this one.


A tower shield can instead grant you cover
So by this rule a character who can get behind a tower shield has cover. Lets look at cover.

Total Cover: If you don’t have line of effect to your target (for
instance, if he is completely behind a high wall), he is considered to
have total cover from you. You can’t make an attack against a target
that has total cover.
Now this is where the quirk comes in. The tower shield is a piece of your equipment, and as such is treated as a part of you. The shield grants you cover, which grants the shield cover. Effectively putting you into a Schrödinger like state of quantum blink.

Now this is as I said above absurd, but by reading the RULES exactly AS they are WRITTEN, this is the result.

Swordsage AC Bonus

AC Bonus: Starring at 2nd level, you can add your Wisdom
modifier as a bonus to Armor Class, so long as you wear light
armor, are unencumbered, and do not use a shield. This
bonus to AC applies even against touch at tacks or when you
are flat·footed. However, you lose this bonus when you are
immobilized or helpless.
So, by reading this RULE AS it is WRITTEN, we can see that a swordsage who is not currently wearing their armor does not gain the wisdom bonus to AC. Commen sense dictates otherwise, but that is not what RAW is about.

Disintegrate Vs. Trees
I Just stole Zaq's explanation for this one.




Disintegrate
Transmutation
Level: Destruction 7, Sor/Wiz 6
Components: V, S, M/DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level)
Effect: Ray
Duration: Instantaneous
Saving Throw: Fortitude partial (object)
Spell Resistance: Yes

A thin, green ray springs from your pointing finger. You must make a successful ranged touch attack to hit. Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 40d6). Any creature reduced to 0 or fewer hit points by this spell is entirely disintegrated, leaving behind only a trace of fine dust. A disintegrated creature’s equipment is unaffected.

When used against an object, the ray simply disintegrates as much as one 10-foot cube of nonliving matter. Thus, the spell disintegrates only part of any very large object or structure targeted. The ray affects even objects constructed entirely of force, such as forceful hand or a wall of force, but not magical effects such as a globe of invulnerability or an antimagic field.

A creature or object that makes a successful Fortitude save is partially affected, taking only 5d6 points of damage. If this damage reduces the creature or object to 0 or fewer hit points, it is entirely disintegrated.

Only the first creature or object struck can be affected; that is, the ray affects only one target per casting.
Arcane Material Component

A lodestone and a pinch of dust.
Emphasis added. Trees aren't creatures, so they don't fall under the first paragraph, and they're not nonliving matter, so they don't fall under the second paragraph. The spell has no provisions for affecting anything else, so they're immune.

Using our RAW reading glasses, disintegrate does absolutely nothing to a tree.
As an aside:

The issue is a lot of what forum-posters consider RAW is based on what, in any other setting, would be poor reading comprehension. This is permitted because they have concocted a notion that it is impossible to glean intent from context.

If I say a Toaster can make Toast two minutes after I put a slice of Bread in it, 90% of people reading it will understand my intent. A TO (Toast Optimization in this case) poster will say "It never says the Bread is consumed, so by RAW you can make NI Toast using one slice of Bread."

The idea of RAW has been polluted with this unnatural legalistic way of reading text. Maybe that's inevitable with any rules system, but the difference is that RAW is a way to end conversations about rules.

"Monks are not proficient in their unarmed strikes."
"Well, if you look at the Monk entry, they are clearly designed as Unarmed warriors so this is obviously a typo."
"If you want to Homebrew it be my guest, but by RAW they don't have it."

It is a classic Thought Terminating Cliche; defending a logically dubious claim with repetition of a reductive statement.
This is hilariously offensive and wildly off topic. Bravo.

[Answerer]

If they refer to a more general topic (e.g. spells in D&D -> RAW in, let's see...), then it is not obvious what the term covers.

General statements such as "Nowhere in the RAW..." do not specifically refer to one piece of writing. They refer to a canon of multiple individual sources.

As such, RAW is, in part, used to refer to an entity.
Such uses are incorrect. As already stated, they would typically be referring to Wizards-published material, but this is not any kind of standardized thing; if there's confusion in a particular case it would make the most sense to clarify with the person who said it.