new to the site..

[carrdrivesyou]

I have been reading some of the threads and am confused by what people mean by RAW vs RAI and tier # characters? Help?

[GilesTheCleric]

RAW means "Rules as written". RAI means "Rules as interpreted". Many here on the forums are of the belief that RAW is the best, and is valid for most circumstances. Almost all discussions and threads here have RAW as an assumption.

Welcome to the playground.

Edit: Tiers are a heuristic for determining any particular class's "power" (in the tier system, more flexibility = more "power"). In this system, T1 is the most-flexible, and includes wizards, druids, and clerics. T6 is the least-flexible, and includes commoners and samurai. See the official thread (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=1002.0) for an in-depth explanation.

[BrokenChord]

Tier refers to JaronK's system of listing classes into 6 categories of overall competence, with power, versatility, and a number of other factors considered. His intention was to give ideas of which classes are balanced against each other to help with party balance. A lot of optimization stuff is poisonous to your mind, but JaronK's tier list is fairly harmless as long as you try not to care too much about it.

RAI vs RAW is basically "rules as the writers intended" vs "rules taken literally as they were written". D&D's editing team is really silly, so a bunch of crap flew under the radar, such as drowning being usable as a source of healing because it technically just sets HP straight to 0, even though that entire notion is completely ridiculous. A lot of people prefer using RAW for most discussions, though, because different people interpret things differently and RAW gives a baseline that everyone can understand even if they don't agree with it.

[eggynack]

Hello new-fellow. RAW means rules as written, and that is meant to indicate that a given chunk of rules logic is taken directly from the books, with no interpretation whatsoever. Granted, you often have to interpret at least a little, especially in the more complicated cases, but the idea is that you match what the book says as closely as possible. As an example, by RAW, the monk is not proficient with unarmed strikes. It's a true thing. RAI means rules as intended or interpreted, and it usually indicates that you're arguing that the rules should be a certain way, or that the designers intended them to be a certain way. So, by most people's RAI, monks are proficient with unarmed strikes.

In most cases, we try to rely on RAW over RAI, because we can't assume a hypothetical DM is going to use what are effectively a given set of houserules. As I have said on occasion, rules as interpreted is only useful when it is less confusing and ambiguous than the RAW it's trying to resolve, and that is rarely the case. Thus, you should default to RAW unless otherwise stated.

As for tiers, they're a system designed to codify the ability of a given class to help in a given situation, as well as the degree to which they will help. Thus, wizards, who can always apply massive amounts of help to every given situation, often in game breaking quantities, are tier one. Simultaneously, monks, who can only really apply their talents to fighting, and are weak at even that, are tier five. It is not a system designed to tell you that one class is better than another, in terms of how fun they are to play, so you could easily find happiness while playing tier 5's.

Ultimately, the tier system is a tool designed to tell you how a given character balances out with other characters in a party, how that party balances out against challenges, and whether problems will arise in either area. Then again, you could always not do that, and the tier system will just keep humming away in the background of the game, being generally accurate (if perhaps not perfectly so). It is also a system that acts as a nifty shorthand, as I can just say "tier 3", and have folks know what I'm talking about. As for the tier system itself, you can find that here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293), and you should probably try to read all of that. Also relevant is the why each class is in its tier (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0) thread, which should answer most questions you have about that. Beyond that, I can only wish you well in your proceedings through the world of D&D 3.5 high optimization, and maybe link other random stuff if the need arises.

[Eldan]

RAW means "Rules as written". RAI means "Rules as interpreted". Many here on the forums are of the belief that RAW is the best, and is valid for most circumstances. Almost all discussions and threads here have RAW as an assumption.

Not best, really. "Easiest basis for a discussion". RAW has the advantage that it is right there in the books and everyone can look it up. RAI is different for every group, so we can't really discuss it, unless every thread starts with "in my group, we have the following 295 interpretations of common rules."

[Crake]

RAI means "Rules as interpreted"

I'm pretty sure RAI means rules as intended, not rules as interpreted, since the latter is pretty much the same as RAW.

[Eldan]

I'm pretty sure RAI means rules as intended, not rules as interpreted, since the latter is pretty much the same as RAW.

It means both, depending on who you ask. Basically, we can't know what the designers intended. It's always an interpretation. Sure, we can be reasonably sure that they didn't want drown healing or monks with a -4 penalty to all attack rolls. But other cases are much muddier.

[GilesTheCleric]

Not best, really. "Easiest basis for a discussion". RAW has the advantage that it is right there in the books and everyone can look it up. RAI is different for every group, so we can't really discuss it, unless every thread starts with "in my group, we have the following 295 interpretations of common rules."
Ah, sorry if I wasn't clear when I said best. You're correct, and more precise.


I'm pretty sure RAI means rules as intended, not rules as interpreted, since the latter is pretty much the same as RAW.
Intended is probably the more common use, but I prefer interpreted, for the reason Eldan states below. Either way is fine, really. The point is that it's not RAW.


It means both, depending on who you ask. Basically, we can't know what the designers intended. It's always an interpretation. Sure, we can be reasonably sure that they didn't want drown healing or monks with a -4 penalty to all attack rolls. But other cases are much muddier.

[Urpriest]

Intended is probably the more common use, but I prefer interpreted, for the reason Eldan states below. Either way is fine, really. The point is that it's not RAW.

I feel like the term for "rules as interpreted" is RAMS, rules as make sense.

Myself, I try to promote a "rules as maximally consistent with other rules" perspective, but that's less popular.

[Komatik]

Hello new-fellow. RAW means rules as written, and that is meant to indicate that a given chunk of rules logic is taken directly from the books, with no interpretation whatsoever. Granted, you often have to interpret at least a little, especially in the more complicated cases, but the idea is that you match what the book says as closely as possible. As an example, by RAW, the monk is not proficient with unarmed strikes. It's a true thing. RAI means rules as intended or interpreted, and it usually indicates that you're arguing that the rules should be a certain way, or that the designers intended them to be a certain way. So, by most people's RAI, monks are proficient with unarmed strikes.

In most cases, we try to rely on RAW over RAI, because we can't assume a hypothetical DM is going to use what are effectively a given set of houserules. As I have said on occasion, rules as interpreted is only useful when it is less confusing and ambiguous than the RAW it's trying to resolve, and that is rarely the case. Thus, you should default to RAW unless otherwise stated.

As for tiers, they're a system designed to codify the ability of a given class to help in a given situation, as well as the degree to which they will help. Thus, wizards, who can always apply massive amounts of help to every given situation, often in game breaking quantities, are tier one. Simultaneously, monks, who can only really apply their talents to fighting, and are weak at even that, are tier five. It is not a system designed to tell you that one class is better than another, in terms of how fun they are to play, so you could easily find happiness while playing tier 5's.

Ultimately, the tier system is a tool designed to tell you how a given character balances out with other characters in a party, how that party balances out against challenges, and whether problems will arise in either area. Then again, you could always not do that, and the tier system will just keep humming away in the background of the game, being generally accurate (if perhaps not perfectly so). It is also a system that acts as a nifty shorthand, as I can just say "tier 3", and have folks know what I'm talking about. As for the tier system itself, you can find that here (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293), and you should probably try to read all of that. Also relevant is the why each class is in its tier (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5256.0) thread, which should answer most questions you have about that. Beyond that, I can only wish you well in your proceedings through the world of D&D 3.5 high optimization, and maybe link other random stuff if the need arises.

Quoting this because it's so spot on and well worded.

To elaborate on the tier system's intended purpose, tier 1 characters tend to be able to do anything with game- and/or narrative-breaking power - Druids are the most straightforward example here - or even break the game so badly you're not even playing the game game anymore - Wizards are famous for this, and with a bit of effort can do all the druid stuff too.

This isn't a problem for people who want to have fun if everyone in the party can do it. There's no imbalance if everyone can break the game, and the DM can set up ridiculous obstacles for the group because they're so strong without leaving anyone behind.

But what if someone isn't a Tier1/Tier2 caster with game-breaking power? Being a dude that can hit things with a stick so hard they vaporize from the slightest touch is super cool, but just not that useful when the others can instantly retreat to a plane where one year passes in a few seconds so they can prepare however they see fit and come back to simply end you from a few miles away, or deprive you of your ability to move, or your free will, or whatever other insanity they might have thought of.

Being a dude that hits things with a stick might not fit well with a party where the rest are basically gods, but being a dude who hits things with a stick in the company of a dude who can work a bit of magic to mend others' wounds, a dude who can pick locks and smooth talk people and a lass who throws fireballs that essentially hit a bunch of guys with a stick for less than you do can be a pretty enjoyable thing. The problems such a party faces would be trivial to one of those aforementioned gods, which is why they should probably be kept separate.


tl;dr: Spellcasters are broken.

Also, fully half of that brokenness is in the core three books, and core options for nonspellcasters tend to be monotonic and suck abysmally. Extra books help those guys out a lot, while not really helping spellcasters out that much. Extra books actually help in that they introduce very thematic spellcasting classes that get 9th-level spells but aren't as horrendously broken as the Wizard, Cleric, Druid and to a slightly lesser extent Sorcerer are.

[Red Fel]

Welcome to the site. As you can see, we often debate the semantics of the rules here - even down to what the abbreviations mean.

If you're confused, it means you're thinking clearly. Contrariwise; that's logic. :smallcool:

[GilesTheCleric]

I feel like the term for "rules as interpreted" is RAMS, rules as make sense.

Myself, I try to promote a "rules as maximally consistent with other rules" perspective, but that's less popular.

That seems like a good way of doing things. I'll see if I can remember to adopt it XD

[carrdrivesyou]

Well I certainly appreciate the help and the welcome to the site guys and gals. And this does help clear reading this site up a metric SH** ton. I've played and DM'd numerous 3.5 and Pathfinder games, so hopefully I can help some of you lot in the future :D

[Snowbluff]

I feel like the term for "rules as interpreted" is RAMS, rules as make sense.

Myself, I try to promote a "rules as maximally consistent with other rules" perspective, but that's less popular.

I would, but I'm here to give advice. RAW is really as good as it gets, especially with RAI opinions from authors being so rare (I can only think of 2 examples).

PF is the opposite, and Paizo will make people cry with their RAI. Yes, it rhymes.

[Slipperychicken]

Didn't someone fill a post with translations for forum-jargon?

[eggynack]

Didn't someone fill a post with translations for forum-jargon?
Yes (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?18512-Common-Acronyms-Abbreviations-and-Terms). However, the post oddly does not contain a listing for RAI, so the answer always has to awkwardly be, "You can find the definition for RAW and other such terms over here. Also, RAI means this thing." It's even more odd when none of the requested terms are in there, which happens, so you have to be all like, "You can easily find just about everything you need here, for future reference. Not any of the things you're looking for though. I'll just define those for you." It's definitely a helpful thing to hand over to people, but it's an annoying thing on occasion.

[Snowbluff]

It doesn't have "DB" for Duskblade either, and 5e/Next aren't listed due to the age.

It also needs the Snowbluff Axiom. :smalltongue: