Are feat headers normative, or descriptive? [3.5 RAW]

[TuggyNE]

Curmudgeon's recent post on this got me thinking, as is my wont. In particular, "plain language" does not seem like a very strong argument for strict normative effect; it fits rather better with simply being a summary or description that has lower priority than the detailed Benefit/Special text. This is reasonably common in English, and consistent with other cases in D&D where summaries are explicitly labeled as lower on the RAW totem pole, such as text vs. table, spell list summary vs. spell text, and so on.

However, it's not an ironclad case, even if it does seem rather more plausible to me; is there any argument that would settle this question with full certainty one way or another?

[Fax Celestis]

I'll have to use a spell, but it should illustrate that the descriptive text is indeed inherent to a feat or spell's effects.

Take a look at the rouse spell in PHB-II.


With a loud snap of your fingers, you cause any sleeping creatures in the spell's area to awaken.

This spell has no effect on creatures that are unconscious due to being reduced to negative hit points, or that have taken nonlethal damage in excess of their current hit points.
So, without the descriptive text, this spell does nothing. With it, however, it has a clear function.

[Psyren]

That this can even be a topic is a serious problem with the game.

[Telonius]

That this can even be a topic is a serious problem with the game.

I'm really tempted to say this kind of problem exists between dice and chair, but that's not always the case. Editors missing things, real disconnect between description and mechanics... I'm sure there's examples of all of it if you dig enough.

[Snowbluff]

Does it list it after "Benefit?"


Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat
description) to do.

The header is just a summary. If we read things like that, monks would be 'good' and 'interesting.'

Or, for the example, the header and the benefit have different texts, that have different meanings, and are distinct. You get the benefit of the header, and then the benefits of the Benefit text. Other than that it's simple logic.

Feat!
This feat does X.
Benefit: (This feat does Y, which includes or does not preclude X.)

[TuggyNE]

I'll have to use a spell, but it should illustrate that the descriptive text is indeed inherent to a feat or spell's effects.

Take a look at the rouse spell in PHB-II.

So, without the descriptive text, this spell does nothing. With it, however, it has a clear function.

That does indeed show the problem with considering the descriptive text non-normative; it doesn't prove it's of equal priority, though, and strictly speaking that could simply be an editing error and not a proof of anything except that WotC is not super-awesome at editing.

RACSD in most cases should not of course be all that difficult to determine, but I'm digging at the RAW to see if there's anything actually defined, if WotC actually thought about this or just tacitly assumed readers would manage to work it out.

Put another way, I'm digging at the specs to see if this is an implementation detail, undefined behavior, or similar. Those are always fun (http://dwarffortresswiki.org/index.php/Fun).


That this can even be a topic is a serious problem with the game.

Let's be fair: most people are kind of bad at reading in general, so it's less a problem with the game and more a simple fact of human nature when you have something you care about deeply and not quite enough training in what's necessary to figure it out with full accuracy. It's compounded by the lousy job WotC did proofreading and figuring out rules priority, though, not to mention the large array of diversely-created material.

TL/DR: Sticklers are an endangered subspecies of humans. :smalltongue:

[mattie_p]

TL/DR: Sticklers are an endangered subspecies of humans. :smalltongue:

Not here. Have you even been reading this forum!?! :smallbiggrin:

[Segev]

Not here. Have you even been reading this forum!?! :smallbiggrin:

What forum? Where!? I don't know anything about any forum! You can't prove anything!

[Psyren]

I get that WotC did a terrible job in some cases, but the majority of the game is comprehensible. (If it wasn't, playing it would be impossible.) I just don't think this level of pedantry does anything to enhance the experience.

In short, if it makes sense that descriptive text would be a rule, treat it like one. If it appears purely descriptive, likely it was. This degree of scrutiny exceeds the game's operational parameters.

[Deophaun]

The phrase plain language says that it's not really RAW. It doesn't use game terminology to describe an ability's effects, or give you enough information if you get into the weeds of effect interactions and the like. It's more like an elevator pitch for a book or movie. And sometimes, what sounds great in a pitch doesn't work out with reality, or the pitch is woefully misleading.

And yes, the blurry line between fluff and crunch in 3.5 is an annoying problem.

[TuggyNE]

Not here. Have you even been reading this forum!?! :smallbiggrin:

Even here, even in the bastion of my very own laptop*, the sticklers are often less competent than minimum standard, and are prone to misreading and misinterpretation.


In short, if it makes sense that descriptive text would be a rule, treat it like one. If it appears purely descriptive, likely it was. This degree of scrutiny exceeds the game's operational parameters.

So no, they didn't think about it. *shrugs*


The phrase plain language says that it's not really RAW. It doesn't use game terminology to describe an ability's effects, or give you enough information if you get into the weeds of effect interactions and the like. It's more like an elevator pitch for a book or movie. And sometimes, what sounds great in a pitch doesn't work out with reality, or the pitch is woefully misleading.

That sounds about right, yes.

*Why yes, I can be self-deprecatory at times. :smallwink:

[Psyren]

So no, they didn't think about it. *shrugs*


That really isn't fair. Some of the best designers out there - Bruce Cordell, Ari Marmell, Jeremy Smith etc. - make mistakes, and don't notice all of them until the book's been printed. That's the whole point of errata. If something isn't clear or appears contradictory, it's not always malice or lack of concern for the work, it's just the sheer volume of it means slip-ups will happen. Nor can a designer accurately predict how every line of text will be read or interpreted.

[Snowbluff]

Does anyone else think what Curmudgeon said was wrong? If it is we should seek to correct the FAQ.

[Psyren]

Does anyone else think what Curmudgeon said was wrong? If it is we should seek to correct the FAQ.

I don't have a problem with what Curmudgeon said. Fax's example was pretty clear to me - it shows that descriptive/italic text can be just as regulatory as the other parts of an entry.

In cases where they appear to contradict, I would do as I do everywhere else, and defer to whichever is more specific.

[Snowbluff]

I don't have a problem with what Curmudgeon said. Fax's example was pretty clear to me - it shows that descriptive/italic text can be just as regulatory as the other parts of an entry.

In cases where they appear to contradict, I would do as I do everywhere else, and defer to whichever is more specific. Yeah, except Rouse sucks in effect as much as it sucks in wording.

That the ruling in the specific instance (Zen Archery) seems, nay, is wrong. The text does not contradict. Zen Archery works with any ranged attack roll.

[Psyren]

Yeah, except Rouse sucks in effect as much as it sucks in wording.

It's effectiveness (or lack thereof) isn't relevant though.



That the ruling in the specific instance (Zen Archery) seems, nay, is wrong. The text does not contradict. Zen Archery works with any ranged attack roll.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was fine with Curmudgeon's ruling that the descriptive text can be used as a rule. But the text of the feat is more specific than the descriptive text and thus trumps. So I agree with you, ZA works with any ranged attack.

EDIT: It's actually moot in this case. Curmudgeon's ruling missed the Weaponlike Spells entry in Complete Arcane 72 - rays, orbs, and even spells that require regular attack rolls (e.g. Decaptitating Scarf) all count as ranged weapons for the purposes of feats. Thus, Zen Archery will work with all of them.

[Snowbluff]

It's effectiveness (or lack thereof) isn't relevant though.
It's canonicity might. Do we have other example? Or is it that this is just a bad example? Do we have a line in the rules compendium that clarifies this?



Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was fine with Curmudgeon's ruling that the descriptive text can be used as a rule. But the text of the feat is more specific than the descriptive text and thus trumps. So I agree with you, ZA works with any ranged attack.
:smallwink:

Which is why I think a correction is in order.

[TuggyNE]

That really isn't fair. Some of the best designers out there - Bruce Cordell, Ari Marmell, Jeremy Smith etc. - make mistakes, and don't notice all of them until the book's been printed. That's the whole point of errata. If something isn't clear or appears contradictory, it's not always malice or lack of concern for the work, it's just the sheer volume of it means slip-ups will happen. Nor can a designer accurately predict how every line of text will be read or interpreted.

It's perfectly fair to note that they never considered the general case that this thread discusses — namely, whether feat headers, or other descriptive text, should be normative at all, and if so to what extent — because as near as I can figure, they never did. Individual entries for those thousands of feats presumably assume, often implicitly, one way or another, but is there any generally-applicable rule that states it, as there is with the precedence of table and text?

Apparently there is not, and that's not an omission on the scale of "1d43 damage" or a peculiarity like "Deathwatch (Necromancy [Evil])". It is a fundamental consideration of the formal underpinnings of the work that simply was never completed. That's all there is to it.

I'm forgiving of errors, even serious ones, because I know from personal experience (both in homebrew, and in professional programming) how hard proper specifications can be. That doesn't mean I'll turn a blind eye to them, in my own work or in others, because this kind of issue demonstrably matters. (In this specific case, someone cared enough to ask the initial question, and several others cared enough to have differing opinions about the proper answer after putting some effort into attempting to read it properly.)

[Snowbluff]

Yeah, I personally err on the side of "this functions" when making rulings.

[Psyren]

It's perfectly fair to note that they never considered the general case that this thread discusses — namely, whether feat headers, or other descriptive text, should be normative at all, and if so to what extent — because as near as I can figure, they never did.

Eh... Honestly, the folks who obsess over this sort of thing are impossible to please anyway, and the ones who don't already know which way to rule in each instance. At some point you have to stop designing and print.

[Crasical]

And yes, the blurry line between fluff and crunch in 3.5 is an annoying problem.

May I interest you in some fourth edition Dungeons and Dragons, sir?

[faircoin]

TuggyNE, your use of "normative" is confusing. As opposed to "normative/positivist" or "normative/meta", the "normative" in your title is meant to represent crunch. That's a very nonstandard use of "normative".

[TuggyNE]

Off-topic for wording choice:
TuggyNE, your use of "normative" is confusing. As opposed to "normative/positivist" or "normative/meta", the "normative" in your title is meant to represent crunch. That's a very nonstandard use of "normative".

… It's "normative", as in "tells you how things should be in detail" vs "descriptive", as in "more or less how things look", not "crunch" vs "fluff" per se. Normative carries the connotation of prescribing or indicating intended patterns. Here, have a bit of Merriam-Webster: "Definition of NORMATIVE. 1: of, relating to, or determining norms or standards". Most other definitions of the word are perfectly compatible with that idea and usage, so I don't know where the non-standard bit comes in.

I suppose I could have said "prescriptive, or descriptive", but that would have made me think of grammar arguments between linguists, and that's no good. :smalltongue: (Also: I didn't even think of it. Normative seemed like a good choice off the top of my head.)

Oh yeah, and upon double-checking WP's article about normativity, I got this quote: "Normative claims are usually contrasted with positive (i.e. descriptive, explanatory, or constative) claims when describing types of theories, beliefs, or propositions."

[faircoin]

Normative and positivist are epistemic words. Positivist is not "descriptive" in the sense that D&D is descriptive when it's talking about an object's fluff. "Descriptive" where positivism is concerned is about formal (mathematical) constructions used for modeling experience. Anything that can be expressed by analytical models, like first order logic or category theory.

Normative does indeed mean "relating to norms and behavior", but its usage is mostly academic and much more nuanced than Merriam-Webster's simplified definition. Normative refers to the structure and function of social trends and behavior, whereas D&D RAW is only trivially a "behavior" in the same sense most human affairs are. Social trends or behavior covered and referred to by "normative" are usually restricted to academic sociology.

Now, maybe it's because I don't talk much to people outside of my research or work nowadays, but I've never heard "normative" used casually in normal conversation. So, if I hear "normative", it's likely used in an academic fashion.

And I've described above how academicians use "normative". I've worked in academia for a long, long time, but don't take my word for it. I'll refer you to two well-known papers that will use "normative" in the sense we use it in academia: "Language, Truth, and Logic" by Ayers, and "The Social System" by Parsons.

[TuggyNE]

OT:
Normative and positivist are epistemic words. Positivist is not "descriptive" in the sense that D&D is descriptive when it's talking about an object's fluff. "Descriptive" where positivism is concerned is about formal (mathematical) constructions used for modeling experience. Anything that can be expressed by analytical models, like first order logic or category theory.

The crucial similarity is that both are (from my perspective) more concerned with explaining things at a high level than with instructing or directing. This is especially true with meta-ethics, I suppose.


Now, maybe it's because I don't talk much to people outside of my research or work nowadays, but I've never heard "normative" used casually in normal conversation. So, if I hear "normative", it's likely used in an academic fashion.

That would probably be why. I'm not an academic; I am a self-taught computer programmer with an abnormally large vocabulary. So use of words that some fields would consider specialized jargon is just par for the course.

And, to be quite honest, outside the cloistered halls of formal learning I don't think normative has the restrictions you're thinking of at all. It's a fairly general word with uses in different fields; anything that can be used for philosophical systems, international law, and technical specifications (http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc4897.html) with equal ease is clearly not all that specialized. (The link is a great example of the context I'm used to seeing it in.)

[Segev]

I think it safe to say that the headers at the least tell you what the writer's intent was, as a general rule. If the header is unclear, the "Benefits" section spells out what the actual rules are. If the header is clear, then you can safely assume the "Benefits" section should be read in context of enabling what the header says the feat does.

Only if there's actual contradiction, as opposed to some sort of incompleteness of the "Benefits" section's rules wrt the overall rules of the game as applied to trying to achieve what the headers says, should we really be debating which takes precedent. And then, I'd go with the "Benefits" section over the header while trying to read the "Benefits" section as much in context of the header as RAI as possible.

[Psyren]

I think it safe to say that the headers at the least tell you what the writer's intent was, as a general rule. If the header is unclear, the "Benefits" section spells out what the actual rules are. If the header is clear, then you can safely assume the "Benefits" section should be read in context of enabling what the header says the feat does.

Only if there's actual contradiction, as opposed to some sort of incompleteness of the "Benefits" section's rules wrt the overall rules of the game as applied to trying to achieve what the headers says, should we really be debating which takes precedent. And then, I'd go with the "Benefits" section over the header while trying to read the "Benefits" section as much in context of the header as RAI as possible.

Stop! You're making sense! It burnsssssss us!

[Segev]

Oh! My apologies.

*ahem* WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE HEADER MIGHT TELL US INTENT!? INTENT IS ALWAYS IMPOSSIBLE TO DIVINE, AND ONLY THE RAW IN THE ONE SENTENCE THAT MAKES MY POINT APPLIES TO ANYTHING!

Please accept the above soothing balm to your wounds. ;)

[Person_Man]

I think it safe to say that the headers at the least tell you what the writer's intent was, as a general rule. If the header is unclear, the "Benefits" section spells out what the actual rules are. If the header is clear, then you can safely assume the "Benefits" section should be read in context of enabling what the header says the feat does.

Only if there's actual contradiction, as opposed to some sort of incompleteness of the "Benefits" section's rules wrt the overall rules of the game as applied to trying to achieve what the headers says, should we really be debating which takes precedent. And then, I'd go with the "Benefits" section over the header while trying to read the "Benefits" section as much in context of the header as RAI as possible.

+1

When reading any part of the game, assume that it was written by a human being who was trying to create some fun new bit of crunch to play with, and not a lawyer who had audited every rule in the game and came up with a clever way of creating something insanely powerful without appearing to be so just so that you could find it, because you are even more clever.

[Snowbluff]

Oh! My apologies.

*ahem* WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE HEADER MIGHT TELL US INTENT!? INTENT IS ALWAYS IMPOSSIBLE TO DIVINE, AND ONLY THE RAW IN THE ONE SENTENCE THAT MAKES MY POINT APPLIES TO ANYTHING!

Please accept the above soothing balm to your wounds. ;)
On the other hand, intent is actually impossible to divine, and RAI is more often used as an excuse for a person trying to enforce how he thinks the game should be played. RAI is ultimately useless in general, since different tables would interpret the 'obvious' signs of intent differently. I don't play by RAW entirely, but I also think RAI might as well read 'Reads as John Doe plays' or similar.

There are cases where RAI is actually useful, but they are far and few between. I would list post publication fixes by the writers under RAI, like the Hexblade, Dvati, and Warlock alterations and rulings.
(::)

[Segev]

I'm thinking specifically of a feat that says in its header that it lets you cast a spell while concentrating on another. That is pretty clear intent. The Benefit section only describes changing the action-type of Concentrating from Standard to Move (and to Swift with a high enough Concentration check). It doesn't overtly, in that section, change that you can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one. The header, however, clearly says the feat allows you to. The Benefit section, read in context of that clear intent, tells you HOW it allows it: it frees up your Standard action for spellcasting (or other things) while you concentrate on the extant spell.

[Deophaun]

May I interest you in some fourth edition Dungeons and Dragons, sir?
A fine system that I have DMed for and played in.

[Snowbluff]

I'm thinking specifically of a feat that says in its header that it lets you cast a spell while concentrating on another. That is pretty clear intent. The Benefit section only describes changing the action-type of Concentrating from Standard to Move (and to Swift with a high enough Concentration check). It doesn't overtly, in that section, change that you can't cast a spell while concentrating on another one. The header, however, clearly says the feat allows you to. The Benefit section, read in context of that clear intent, tells you HOW it allows it: it frees up your Standard action for spellcasting (or other things) while you concentrate on the extant spell.
So you can't drink a potion while concentrating on spell? Or attack? These options are not excluded specifically in the text of the header for Extraordinary Concentration, but the Benefit clearly allows this. Being able to cast spells while concentrating is obviously intended to be a handy side-effect.

[Segev]

So you can't drink a potion while concentrating on spell? Or attack? These options are not excluded specifically in the text of the header for Extraordinary Concentration, but the Benefit clearly allows this. Being able to cast spells while concentrating is obviously intended to be a handy side-effect.

Note what I said: "The intent that you be able to cast spells while concentrating on another through this feat is clear."

Note what I did not say: "Then, obviously, you can't do anything else with those freed-up standard actions."

The "Benefit" section, read in context of the header, spells out that standard actions are freed up. Since one of the things concentrating on a spell did was eat your standard action, which would preclude you casting another spell, it can be assumed the intent was that this freed-up standard action be the mechanism by which standard-action spells be castable.

That freeing up a standard action allows other things to be done is not a problem, whether you read it in light of the header or not. The Benefit clearly allows this.

I can't think how you'd interpret what I said to suggest otherwise.

[Deophaun]

So you can't drink a potion while concentrating on spell? Or attack? These options are not excluded specifically in the text of the header for Extraordinary Concentration, but the Benefit clearly allows this. Being able to cast spells while concentrating is obviously intended to be a handy side-effect.
The difference is drinking a potion and attacking are not specifically called out in the rules as Something You Cannot Do While Concentrating On A Spell. Casting another spell, however, is:

You can’t cast a spell while concentrating on another one.
So a feat that only changes concentration to a move, swift, or free action still would not allow you to cast a spell, though it would allow you to attack, drink a potion, pick a lock, etc.

[Snowbluff]

Here is the problem: What you think is RAI and the header are entirely superfluous and irrelevant. This is more a case that headers are not RAW, and that RAI is jank more than anything else.

The problem is when someone is ruling on the side of RAI, the header limits the feat to only allowing spellcasting, which is the error Curmudgeon made.

EDIT: Deophaun > Segev.

[Segev]

Oh! Were you thinking I was suggesting the header limited the feat to allowing spellcasting with the freed-up standard? I am sorry for not being clear.

Deophaun's explanation has, I hope, illustrated the potential RAW problem with the feat.

The reason I am advocating using the header, at the least, as an indicator of intent, is because the header makes it clear that casting a spell while concentrating on another is the central point of having the feat. The Benefit section, as written and in a vacuum, would not enable this. Reading the Benefit section in light and context of the header, however, makes it clear that this feat does, in fact, let you cast a spell while concentrating on another, and does so in addition by providing you with a Standard action in which to do it.

[Segev]

Here is the problem: What you think is RAI and the header are entirely superfluous and irrelevant. This is more a case that headers are not RAW, and that RAI is jank more than anything else.

The problem is when someone is ruling on the side of RAI, the header limits the feat to only allowing spellcasting, which is the error Curmudgeon made.

EDIT: Deophaun > Segev.
As stated in my reply after reading Deophaun's post and, I think, better understanding your rejection, I am not saying to read the header to get the intent and limit the feat. I'm saying to read the header and the intent to understand what the feat really does..

If the header is part of the rules, this is already handled. IF not, it is, at the least, a good indicator of the INTENT behind the feat. If the Benefits section doesn't give rules that actually accomplish the Intent, but only fails to do so because of a potential misunderstanding of the base rules on which the feat is building, it is easy enough to understand how the feat is meant to work.

Again, that doesn't LIMIT what the feat enables, but rather explains what the feat SHOULD enable, just in case there's question that it's meant to, in fact, allow you to cast a spell while concentrating on another.

[Deophaun]

My position is the header is not RAW. But, those headers are handy for convincing DMs to fix bad RAW. Extraordinary Concentration, RAW, does not allow you to cast spells while concentrating. However, if you talk to your DM, and you point to the header and say "even the designers thought it did this," Extraordinary Concentration is 95% likely (because you can always roll a 1 on your DM selection) to let you cast spells while concentrating on another.

[Snowbluff]

My personal problem is doing what should happen. RAW only serves as a common ground that RAI could never accommodate. Intent is irrelevant. If the heading matters, it RAW and not RAI.

EDIT: Deop gets it again.

[Segev]

My personal problem is doing what should happen. RAW only serves as a common ground that RAI could never accommodate. Intent is irrelevant. If the heading matters, it RAW and not RAI.

EDIT: Deop gets it again.

I do believe the question of this thread is whether the heading is RAW or not.

My point is mostly Deop's: if it's RAW, obviously it contributes, and there's no question (other than when the header and benefits section actively contradict). If it's not RAW, it often gives at least a good pointer towards RAI. This is an improvement over many instances where RAI is a lot harder to divine, and can provide some of the rare cases where RAI is clear enough to make solid house rules.

[Psyren]

Intent is irrelevant.

To this, I can only disagree and direct you to Person_Man's excellent post.



EDIT: Deophaun > Segev.

Could you have phrased that any more childishly?

[Snowbluff]

I could have posted in a reportable way, like you just did. I think that would be below me, however. Segev's blue post was openly disrespectful to the standards and simple logic of the situation and mocks those who would use the functional portion of the game.


+1

When reading any part of the game, assume that it was written by a human being who was trying to create some fun new bit of crunch to play with, and not a lawyer who had audited every rule in the game and came up with a clever way of creating something insanely powerful without appearing to be so just so that you could find it, because you are even more clever.

This thing? It doesn't mean anything. Errors are made, but corrections by us are not made universally, and are therefore useless on a large scale. I even pointed out I make corrections, but that they do not matter.

[Psyren]

Segev's blue post was openly disrespectful to the standards and simple logic of the situation and mocks those who would use the functional portion of the game.

The entire premise of this thread does deserve to be mocked.



This thing? It doesn't mean anything. Errors are made, but corrections by us are not made universally, and are therefore useless on a large scale. I even pointed out I make corrections, but that they do not matter.

Thing is, this thread and others like it have no impact on a large scale either. Even if we were to come to some sort of agreement here on how descriptive text should be treated - which isn't looking likely - it would still have no impact on the metagame at large, and on no tables beyond our own.

[Segev]

I could have posted in a reportable way, like you just did. I think that would be below me, however. Segev's blue post was openly disrespectful to the standards and simple logic of the situation and mocks those who would use the functional portion of the game. Note the use of the word "might" in my blue text. And the idea that it is "impossible to divine" is somewhat silly, unless you are firmly in the camp that says the header is RAW (in which case, intent is impossible to divine separately from what is written, since any possible intent in the header is automatically RAW).

Again, my example of which I was specifically thinking has the header say that the feat lets you cast spells while concentrating on another spell. That is not even hard to divine intent from: it's spelled out clearly. If you believe the header to be part of the RAW, then sure. I'm not "divining intent" anymore; I'm just reading the RAW.

But you seem to be taking a great deal of offense. Especially considering that my blue text was in direct response to somebody complaining that I was sounding reasonable. The whole point of it was to make a joking effort to remove the reasonable-soundingness. It's in blue text for crying out loud. I have learned, around here, that that signifies sarcasm, joking.




This thing? It doesn't mean anything. Errors are made, but corrections by us are not made universally, and are therefore useless on a large scale. I even pointed out I make corrections, but that they do not matter.*sigh* If you don't think something as straight-forward as the header saying, "This feat lets you [blah]," followed by a "Benefits" section that says, "Here are some mechanics that open up various things in the way of [blah]," but which fails to cover ALL the issues in the way of [blah] (such as one bit of text in another part of the rules entirely that says "you can't do [blah],") still clearly intends for [blah] to be a possible thing for you to do by taking the feat, then...well. You must be a Cylon. :P

[Snowbluff]

But you seem to be taking a great deal of offense. Especially considering that my blue text was in direct response to somebody complaining that I was sounding reasonable. The whole point of it was to make a joking effort to remove the reasonable-soundingness. It's in blue text for crying out loud. I have learned, around here, that that signifies sarcasm, joking.
The issue is that "Intent is impossible to divine" is a reasonable argument, where as "Intent is impossible to divine"is mocking that argument.


*sigh* If you don't think something as straight-forward as the header saying, "This feat lets you [blah]," followed by a "Benefits" section that says, "Here are some mechanics that open up various things in the way of [blah]," but which fails to cover ALL the issues in the way of [blah] (such as one bit of text in another part of the rules entirely that says "you can't do [blah],") still clearly intends for [blah] to be a possible thing for you to do by taking the feat, then...well. You must be a Cylon. :P
See here for an example. The blue text is correctly used and produced a chuckle, but the tone of exasperation by leading with "*sigh*" destroyed any good will that it would have generated.

[Segev]

The issue is that "Intent is impossible to divine" is a reasonable argument, where as "Intent is impossible to divine"is mocking that argument. You'll note that my original "blue post" that so upset you mocked the argument that intent is impossible to divine. That there is no way in which one MIGHT extract some hint to it.

This is a mock-worthy argument. I didn't think anybody was seriously taking so hard-line an approach. Else I would have argued more cogently against it, because, um... o_o


See here for an example. The blue text is correctly used and produced a chuckle, but the tone of exasperation by leading with "*sigh*" destroyed any good will that it would have generated.
Okay, maybe I should have put the blue sentence in its own paragraph.

The "sigh" is legitimate; I'm utterly baffled that the idea that plain text stating what something does is impossible to decipher the intent from.

It could only be clearer if it said, "The intent of this feat is to let you..." rather than just saying what the feat lets you do.

The blue at the end was an attempt to lift the tone of it, not to negate it.

Also, to indicate that I don't seriously think you are a Cylon. Nor that they exist. Please don't kill me, Cylons, for revealing your existence. Not that you do. >_> <_<

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! *runs in terror*

[Snowbluff]

You'll note that my original "blue post" that so upset you mocked the argument that intent is impossible to divine. That there is no way in which one MIGHT extract some hint to it.

This is a mock-worthy argument. I didn't think anybody was seriously taking so hard-line an approach. Else I would have argued more cogently against it, because, um... o_o Intent is obfuscated by the information and ideas presented in this thread alone. People make mistakes. What you might believe to be intent could be simply an error made in the text.


Also, to indicate that I don't seriously think you are a Cylon. Nor that they exist. Please don't kill me, Cylons, for revealing your existence. Not that you do. >_> <_<

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! *runs in terror*
There are many copies. :smalltongue:

[Segev]

Intent is obfuscated by the information and ideas presented in this thread alone. People make mistakes. What you might believe to be intent could be simply an error made in the text.

Perhaps. But when it says, "you can do [x]," I don't think that likely.

If you're arguing it is still likely, then honestly, we can't even be certain the RAW say what we think they do. Maybe they actually say something else entirely.

Anyway. The thread itself is asking if the header is part of the rules or not.

I see little harm in considering it such, but then, there might be feats which would make me eat those words, so I am open to counter-persuasion.

[Person_Man]

This thing? It doesn't mean anything. Errors are made, but corrections by us are not made universally, and are therefore useless on a large scale. I even pointed out I make corrections, but that they do not matter.

So I'm not even sure what you are arguing at this point, which is a failure on my part to read and understand what you've written. And I mean that without sarcasm. I'm just not understanding you, and I blame myself.

But that lack of understanding is instructive about this debate. Yes, there will be some circumstances where a smart person can't understand what another smart person is trying to say. But that's the exception, and not the rule. And more importantly, if I don't clearly understand you, it does not entitle me to ignore everything you have to say or to twist your words into something beyond what you intend for my benefit.

My previous post was attempting to make a point about this common sense standard. Most D&D writers aren't lawyers, and more importantly, even if they are lawyers, they may not have a total memory of all 100,000ish pages of D&D rules and supplements when they're writing some new Feat or spell or class or whatnot. If you read a rule and it strongly implies X while being silent about Y, you can usually assume that the author only meant X and not Y. And if he wanted it to also apply to Y, he would have probably included that somewhere in the description.

For example, the drowning rules. I'm pretty sure that Skip Williams did not intend for them to be used to heal dying players, because drowning generally doesn't heal people, and the rules make no mention of players with negative hit points having their hit points increased to 0 when they drown. But it's held up as an example of how stupid D&D rules can be. I've always disagreed with this - I think it's an example of how pedantic internet commenters can be.

Yes, writers should be more careful, and companies should edit and play test things before publishing them. And in general, it smart to have things like Key Words and clear segregation of fluff and crunch text and clear math. I'm not arguing against clear writing or elegant game design.

But I for one do not want or need my D&D rules to be written like contracts or computer code. I've done both as part of my job, and it's really boring. Authors should be able to be creative and write rules that do interesting things, even if it means some minority of players may misunderstand it, not just +X to Y in Z circumstances so that everyone will understand it.

[Psyren]

For example, the drowning rules. I'm pretty sure that Skip Williams did not intend for them to be used to heal dying players, because drowning generally doesn't heal people, and the rules make no mention of players with negative hit points having their hit points increased to 0 when they drown. But it's held up as an example of how stupid D&D rules can be. I've always disagreed with this - I think it's an example of how pedantic internet commenters can be.

Yes, writers should be more careful, and companies should edit and play test things before publishing them. And in general, it smart to have things like Key Words and clear segregation of fluff and crunch text and clear math. I'm not arguing against clear writing or elegant game design.

But I for one do not want or need my D&D rules to be written like contracts or computer code. I've done both as part of my job, and it's really boring. Authors should be able to be creative and write rules that do interesting things, even if it means some minority of players may misunderstand it, not just +X to Y in Z circumstances so that everyone will understand it.

I don't have nearly enough room to sig all of this :smallfrown:

[Segev]

I don't have nearly enough room to sig all of this :smallfrown:
Not even under a spoiler tag?

[Snowbluff]

But I for one do not want or need my D&D rules to be written like contracts or computer code. I've done both as part of my job, and it's really boring. Authors should be able to be creative and write rules that do interesting things, even if it means some minority of players may misunderstand it, not just +X to Y in Z circumstances so that everyone will understand it.

It's not about what you want, PM. It is about what it is. The drowning rules being an error is something that is commonly understood. This is why RAW is the language used to describe the game to others. I can even go as far to say one can infer that it was INTENDED to be in error if it was never corrected, which demonstrates the problems with RAI. This represents my preference for working under RAW, since we can't even agree what a line of texts means it it doesn't do anything.

Which is why it's important RAW is very clear.

[Segev]

You could make that argument, but people would roll their eyes at you for doing so. Intent is pretty clear in the word "drowning." It's not a word used to refer to esoteric healing methods.

[Snowbluff]

You could make that argument,

Exactly! If it's this easily questioned, then it only serves to provide a barrier in a discussion.

[Psyren]

You could just as easily infer that they never corrected "drowning to heal" because (a) they knew non-pedants (i.e. most playgroups) would get it and (b) the few that didn't, or got it but found the discordant string fun to endlessly harp on anyway, wouldn't be worth the time it would take to issue properly legalesed errata to plug the hole.

Now obviously, I can't tell you which inference is 100% correct beyond all shadow of doubt, as I am not Skip or his team. But I can tell you which is more logical, easily.

[Snowbluff]

Now obviously, I can't tell you which inference is 100% correct beyond all shadow of doubt, as I am not Skip or his team. But I can tell you which is more logical, easily.

This is acceptable. You do not know the intent, but you can make inferences and form your own ideas on the matter. Claiming your conclusion is what the author intended would be (most likely) incorrect.

[Psyren]

This is acceptable. You do not know the intent, but you can make inferences and form your own ideas on the matter. Claiming your conclusion is what the author intended would be incorrect.

Right, but claiming it's likely what they intended isn't necessarily wrong either. Logic, I haz it.

Also, anything is "easily questioned" to a pedant; no amount of legalese and overdesign will change that. Which goes back to an earlier post I made near the beginning of this thread:


Eh... Honestly, the folks who obsess over this sort of thing are impossible to please anyway, and the ones who don't already know which way to rule in each instance. At some point you have to stop designing and print.

[Segev]

Exactly! If it's this easily questioned, then it only serves to provide a barrier in a discussion.

Well, then, RAW is also only serves to provide a barrier to discussion. I mean, when it says that Cure Light Wounds cures 1d8+1 hit points, how do I know they don't mean that 1d8+1 of my hit points that have a disease are cured of it?

You can enter into stupid assumption territory with the RAW just as easily.

I'm a RAW-pedant when discussing things to form a basis for common language, myself. But I find claims that it is impossible to figure out intent to be spurious at best.

Of course, if all words written in the books are RAW, then you're right. There's never a case where intent can be divined, because we can only assume that everything written is intended to be exactly as it is. And contradictions just require us to guess. (Though even there, intent can often be picked out in many situations.)

But really. I'm not trying to say RAI can and should be used to establish the basis of common language, but it certainly can be used to try to guide rulings for specific tables. And claiming that it CANNOT be divined for such purposes under ANY circumstances is, itself, a barrier to reason. Which defeats the whole purpose of having rules in the first place.

[Deophaun]

To some extent Snowbluff is right. The books aren't the product of a single mind. The contents pass through many hands and gets changed along the way. Someone might say "here's this great feat that lets spell casters cast another spell while concentrating," but then they get vetoed by the guy who says "wizards are overpowered as it is" and so they remove that effect (STOP LAUGHING! Someone at WotC could have said it! Maybe it was a temp who won a contest to be in charge for the day!), but when they changed the benefit, they forgot to change the header. Stuff happens to the point where a sentence saying "This is intended to do X" is not proof of intent (evidence, sure, but not proof).

[Person_Man]

It's not about what you want, PM. It is about what it is. The drowning rules being an error is something that is commonly understood. This is why RAW is the language used to describe the game to others. I can even go as far to say one can infer that it was INTENDED to be in error if it was never corrected, which demonstrates the problems with RAI. This represents my preference for working under RAW, since we can't even agree what a line of texts means it it doesn't do anything.

Which is why it's important RAW is very clear.

So I also believe we agree that RAW should be very clear. I'm not arguing against that.

I'm saying that when RAW isn't clear, most people are capable of being reasonable and making decisions based on the general intent of what is written, and unclear RAW should not be used as an argument for exploiting the game.

For example, you seem like someone who has a firm grasp on the rules, and when you make a character it would probably be a fairly optimal build. And you would probably play your character in a fairly advanced way, making smart decisions and using the rules to your character's advantage.

But lets say you drop to -5 hit points while holding your breath and fighting under water. I rule that you can't hold your breath while unconscious, and you begin to drown. (I'm not even sure if that's RAW or not. It's just my ruling). The rules say that you should go up to 0 hit points, in the following round you drop to -1 hit points and is dying, and in the third round, you drown. But I think that's not what the rules intend, so I rule that you instead stay at -5 hit points the first round and begin drowning, drop to -6 hit points the next round and continue drowning, and on the following round you drown and die. (Unless someone intervenes during that time).

Do you believe my ruling is unreasonable or misreads the intent of the author? If so, do you have a preferred method for resolving the situation?

I accept that the drowning rules can be written more clearly, and wish that all rules were written more clearly. But writers are humans, and humans will make mistakes and can be unclear at times. So we need some method of resolving those issues. My preferred method is to try and understand the intent of the rules based on what's written, and use my previous DM experience to make the game as fun and balanced as possible. But I'm honestly open to alternative methods, if you'd like to propose one.

"Stop writing unclear rules" is a valid critique, but it doesn't resolve problems when they occur. And "if it doesn't specifically bar me from doing X, I can do X" is often a recipe for disaster, as it encourages players to try and break the game, instead of having a fun time playing it.


Complete off topic aside: One of my favorite poems is Not Waving but Drowning (http://www.poetryfoundation.org/learning/guide/177868#poem). After writing about drowning for 5 minutes, I feel compelled to mention it. But doing so has no place here. So if someone can find a way to naturally work it into this conversation, you win one internet cookie.

[Snowbluff]

I understand that, I was just writing a conclusion. It's an impulse I struggle to fight. Nice poem.

As for drowning, a conclusion, ruling, or correction that would be accepted universally would be appreciated. I think that's why we have the RACSD thread. Personally, I believe the drowning rules were penned by Megele, who had used a similiar technique to survive to this era.

[Psyren]

As for drowning, a conclusion, ruling, or correction that would be accepted universally would be appreciated. I think that's why we have the RACSD thread.

You mean the one that got locked for being a flame-filled necroed mess? :smalltongue:

Putting aside the difficulty of wading through that morass to even find the one rule you were interested in getting opinions on, it's unlikely to be even seen, much less heeded, by a majority of 3.5 players. Which brings us right back to the idea that large scale or universal corrections, short of inventing a brand new system, are a fool's errand.

[Snowbluff]

You mean the one that got locked for being a flame-filled necroed mess? :smalltongue:


Yes! That's the one! :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

... Yeah, this doesn't work.

[Chronos]

Yes, usually it's clear to everyone involved how something's supposed to work. Nobody ever actually argues at a table that they should be healed by drowning, because that's clearly absurd. In fact, most rules are even more clear than that, in that they don't even have any absurdity in what's written.

But there are cases that are genuinely ambiguous, and about which people can genuinely disagree. It shouldn't even be hard to think of these cases, since at least two of them are major topics of discussion in this thread. We only laugh at the drowning rules and then go on to play the game sensibly, but there have been disagreements around the table about things like whether a cleric can use Intuitive Attack with a ray spell, or whether Extraordinary Concentration allows concentrating on one spell while casting another. And for the real disagreements like that, we need to figure out what the rules are, or at least figure out what a group is going to agree the rules are.

[TuggyNE]

I'm a little puzzled at the apparent attitude that the rules are fine and no one should ever criticize unclear writing because surely anyone could figure it out! Especially since this attitude usually ends up declaring that some particular question that someone genuinely finds difficult to answer "obviously has only one possible answer", if only they were sensible enough to see it. That's rather unhelpful, and it's also ignoring human factors that tend to make confusion and misunderstanding more likely. For an example where reasonably competent posters disagreed about the way a rule should be interpreted, see the old Solar wish debate (scroll down a ways), or similar threads about chain-gating.


I think it safe to say that the headers at the least tell you what the writer's intent was, as a general rule. If the header is unclear, the "Benefits" section spells out what the actual rules are. If the header is clear, then you can safely assume the "Benefits" section should be read in context of enabling what the header says the feat does.

Only if there's actual contradiction, as opposed to some sort of incompleteness of the "Benefits" section's rules wrt the overall rules of the game as applied to trying to achieve what the headers says, should we really be debating which takes precedent. And then, I'd go with the "Benefits" section over the header while trying to read the "Benefits" section as much in context of the header as RAI as possible.

That seems pretty reasonable, although there are unfortunately cases where that won't work quite right (which is why it would have been better if they'd considered this before starting work).


But there are cases that are genuinely ambiguous, and about which people can genuinely disagree. It shouldn't even be hard to think of these cases, since at least two of them are major topics of discussion in this thread. We only laugh at the drowning rules and then go on to play the game sensibly, but there have been disagreements around the table about things like whether a cleric can use Intuitive Attack with a ray spell, or whether Extraordinary Concentration allows concentrating on one spell while casting another. And for the real disagreements like that, we need to figure out what the rules are, or at least figure out what a group is going to agree the rules are.

Basically, this.

For that matter, since the thread is about a general principle of proper rules interpretation, if there are any cases where the header, benefit, or special disagree or appear puzzling, properly defining the principle would be helpful to readers, and the fact that the principle wasn't defined explicitly is a black mark.

[Psyren]

I'm a little puzzled at the apparent attitude that the rules are fine and no one should ever criticize unclear writing because surely anyone could figure it out!

The rules are fine overall. There are certainly problems in the details, but no amount of pedantic hair-splitting threads will fix those problems even if consensus is achieved (which it rarely is.) And even when that happens, years after these matters are thought "settled," someone will come along with a new interpretation and split the hairs all over again (Dragonwrought Kobolds anyone?)

And to be clear, the threads where someone rediscovers drowning to heal for the umpteenth time don't bother me at all. What bemuses me are the threads that say "wow, this is a serious problem that must be corrected! Let's come up with One True Standard Way to read every entry so that these issues are solved forever!" Or even, "well, we're 75% sure the author meant this, but there's that 25% chance we could be wrong and he meant this, even though it's absurd, so let's not even bother considering likely intent at all and just bicker about it until the thread gets locked."

I don't think either of those scenarios helps the metagame at all; I also don't think designers should spend too much energy (or text) worrying about them happening.

[TuggyNE]

What bemuses me are the threads that say "wow, this is a serious problem that must be corrected! Let's come up with One True Standard Way to read every entry so that these issues are solved forever!"

In general, I'm less interested in constructing an artificial One True Standard Way (OTSW) to read entries (which inevitably will have inconsistencies where the writer wasn't paying attention, especially because it's constructed after the fact) than I am in figuring out OTSW to write entries. This is because, while I'm interested in how the designers intended the game to run, I'm at least as interested in how it should have been written and designed, if only so I can rewrite the parts needed.

This is especially useful for considering homebrew and houserules (including RACSD), since I'm still occasionally finding subtle details that partially invalidate the way I wrote homebrew a year or two ago, or suggest ways it could be misread, or similar. For obvious reasons, if I can avoid doubt without disproportionate effort, I'll do so. (And, let's be fair, I tend to gold-plate everything anyway, so a bit of overdesigning is just my way of satisfying urges.)