RAW logic

[TypoNinja]

So, I've noticed a trend in the RAW dysfunction, its kind of curious to me, people seem resistant to the idea that RAW doesn't conform to reality, or the language it was written in.

Now, the RAW dysfunction thread is largely about fun, so I'm all in favor of a hostile reading of the rules to get us our giggles, but I've noticed a few common points of contention, I'm curious if its just me who thinks this way or not.

Firstly, there is the basis of how the rule system is constructed. Its an exception based system. A base state is established, and you require detailed exceptions/permission to act against this. Easy examples are Grapple rules, Grappling provokes an AoO, unless you have the feat that says you don't. Conversely, you do not have the power to set things on fire with your mind until you are granted that power. Literally everything in D&D can be broken down to a base state or its exception.

Secondly, the rules were written in English, so the rules of the English Language implicitly also apply. They are required to or you can't actually interpret the rules. Rules of Grammar let you separate clauses in how a spell or power functions, how its resisted. The game is littered with natural language terms that are not defined in a game context, things from gravity, how to roll dice, or how to walk. Beyond this, simple terms like 'or' when splitting up options in powers (or the results of a successful save). Pick a generic word from the text of your rule book, its not defined because a rules system written in English by default must still conform to the English language.

These two points together lead to an obvious combination. If a game term is not redefined in game to have a differing effect, it would follow that the default definition of that term in the English language must apply.

While RAW is allowed to contradict reality (especially when magic is involved), it does not automatically follow that reality will not apply to RAW in all cases. This goes back to the exception based rule system. Reality should apply, until we are told it does not. Too much depends on every day basic assumptions about the nature of reality for it to be otherwise.

[Andezzar]

This is mostly true. The DMG even states that fantasy worlds are very similar to the real world except where noted otherwise.

As for RAW discussions, the problem is that the English language does not always have a single definition for a word. Take the previously mentioned word "or". It is ambiguous, it could be the exclusive or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or) or it could be the inclusive or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_or). Used in an exception based rule system, that is a huge uncertainty.

[nedz]

Yes, we need rules written in some kind of formal logic. The trouble is that it's very hard to do this, to the extent that there would probably be more errors since most rules writers aren't trained mathematicians.

[Story]

I think one place where the ambiguity of natural language shows up is the contentious interpretation of Reserves Of Strength. Does the cap bypass only apply to the +3, or does it uncap the spell entirely? Personally I go with the nonbroken interpretation, but there are people who argue vehemently for the later.

[Andezzar]

Huh, what uncapping are you talking about? the feats lets you increase your CL by 1,2, or 3. If you do you are either stunned for 1, 2 or 3 rounds or (if immune to stunning) take 1d6, 3d6 or 5d6 points of damage.

[squiggit]

Huh, what uncapping are you talking about? the feats lets you increase your CL by 1,2, or 3. If you do you are either stunned for 1, 2 or 3 rounds or (if immune to stunning) take 1d6, 3d6 or 5d6 points of damage.
The second part of the feat's description


You can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell withthis feat, so a 9th-level wizard could use Reserves of Strength to cast a Fireball as a 12th-level wizard and deal 12d6 fire damage.

The question here is whether a level 20 caster casting the same fireball does 13d6 or 23d6 damage with it.

[The Grue]

Yes, we need rules written in some kind of formal logic. The trouble is that it's very hard to do this, to the extent that there would probably be more errors since most rules writers aren't trained mathematicians.

In fact there's ample evidence that most rules writers aren't trained anything.

[Lightlawbliss]

The problem is that exception based rules have some very... interesting interactions at times. English also has this problem rather frequently.

take normal (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/normal?s=t) for an example. If you read it using a different meaning then somebody else, you can quickly have a drastic difference in received meaning. Is the game world conforming to the standard of the real world or is it at a right angle to the real world? Both are supported by the word normal.

[137beth]

"RAW logic" is an oxymoron when used in the context of 3.5. I thought people would know that by now:smalltongue:

[Vaz]

I think one place where the ambiguity of natural language shows up is the contentious interpretation of Reserves Of Strength. Does the cap bypass only apply to the +3, or does it uncap the spell entirely? Personally I go with the nonbroken interpretation, but there are people who argue vehemently for the later.

Without derailing, there's very little to support that argument other than "It makes sense/it's not as broken".

I'm all for taking the least broken reading of a particular ability, but that one is pretty cut and dry. If you look at the sentence "You can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell withthis feat". I didn't include the example, because a) Examples are frequently incorrect with the RAW, and b) not actual rules, but it doesn't explicitly spell out that you cannot boost your CL by some other manner either.

An example I've been involved in recently is the inclusion of "Time" as per Genesis. I read it that there's list of things which can be morphed which is the environment, and then lists Temperature and Landscape (paraphrased - I'm not getting into the discussion here) - others believe that "Time" is part of the environment as it falls within "english", but I believe a) that Time is independent of the environment, and b) that it's not explicitly listed as part of the environment in england, and c) that it doesn't explicitly list that Time is a parameter which can be changed. Also - Sor0-lost's post here
http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=1851.0, which hammers it out fairly easily.

Others, such as Obtain Familiar's wording of "allow" using english could be read as "allow" is the opposite of "prevents" - so any class which doesn't prevent spellcasting (i.e anything that's not Forsaker) stacks, provided you qualify.

[Story]

I'm all for taking the least broken reading of a particular ability, but that one is pretty cut and dry. If you look at the sentence "You can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell withthis feat". I didn't include the example, because a) Examples are frequently incorrect with the RAW, and b) not actual rules, but it doesn't explicitly spell out that you cannot boost your CL by some other manner either.

I do not think it's cut and dried at all, but this isn't the place to restart that argument.

[Anlashok]

I do not think it's cut and dried at all, but this isn't the place to restart that argument.
Then let's make a place!

[SiuiS]

Thanks typo ninja. :)

[Vogonjeltz]

This is mostly true. The DMG even states that fantasy worlds are very similar to the real world except where noted otherwise.

As for RAW discussions, the problem is that the English language does not always have a single definition for a word. Take the previously mentioned word "or". It is ambiguous, it could be the exclusive or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exclusive_or) or it could be the inclusive or (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_or). Used in an exception based rule system, that is a huge uncertainty.

Determination of how words are used is accomplished via context.

Exclusive and inclusive ORs are exclusive to computing and logic. Common English usage is always an option meaning:

You can have this or that or both.

Each choice being mutually exclusive with the others (both is mutually exclusive with only having 1).

[...]

I may be in the minority here, but I prefer using the letter of the RAW, as opposed to the spirit of the RAW (see what I did there?). Without that, your fighter can't be in an irreversible state of living dust after surviving a disintegrate in the negatives. I oppose any action that does not let a pinch of dust weld a sword.

[The Grue]

I may be in the minority here, but I prefer using the letter of the RAW, as opposed to the spirit of the RAW (see what I did there?).

I do...but I think it should have been "the retter of the RAW". :smallbiggrin:

[TypoNinja]

I may be in the minority here, but I prefer using the letter of the RAW, as opposed to the spirit of the RAW (see what I did there?). Without that, your fighter can't be in an irreversible state of living dust after surviving a disintegrate in the negatives. I oppose any action that does not let a pinch of dust weld a sword.

Yes, but thanks to the DMG telling us that fantasy worlds are just like ours only magic, the letter of RAW includes basic leaps like "A human needs its lungs to breathe" even though that's not spelled out anywhere in text, it is simply how it works.

[Andezzar]

Yes, but thanks to the DMG telling us that fantasy worlds are just like ours only magic, the letter of RAW includes basic leaps like "A human needs its lungs to breathe" even though that's not spelled out anywhere in text, it is simply how it works.For a human (or an animal) that is not a leap, but simple application of the rules. The rules tell us that the material plane works like our world except where noted otherwise. since in the real world humans need lungs to breath so do characters of the human race. However we have no such real world knowledge about creatures of other types. Since we do not know how other creatures breathe we do not know whether the need lungs or even have lungs.

[Psyren]

It's a safe bet that all the creature types listed here have lungs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/crisisofBreath.htm) unless specified otherwise.

[Andezzar]

It's a safe bet that all the creature types listed here have lungs (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/crisisofBreath.htm) unless specified otherwise.Not at all, look at the target. It's one breathing humanoid. So humanoids need not necessarily breathe and it says nothing about creatures of other types.

[ddude987]

I disagree Psyren. Just because you can affect the creature this way does not mean it has lungs. Its similar to some rules state conditions that are never reached and therefore such rules don't apply. For example, bardic music states some bardic music abilities require concentration. Imagine none of the abilities as written say they require concentration. Just because the rules say some require it does not mean any actually do. Similarly, just because you can interrupt a creatures breathing cycle does not mean it necessarily had a breathing cycle to begin with.

edit: I know the bardic music example was weak, but I couldn't remember where the example concept actually was true, though I do remember somewhere in the plethora of sourcebooks there is a rule that simply never comes into play.

[...]

Yes, but thanks to the DMG telling us that fantasy worlds are just like ours only magic, the letter of RAW includes basic leaps like "A human needs its lungs to breathe" even though that's not spelled out anywhere in text, it is simply how it works.

Well, you could think of it as a transmutation spell. Meld into Stone doesn't have you need air.

[Psyren]

Not at all, look at the target. It's one breathing humanoid. So humanoids need not necessarily breathe and it says nothing about creatures of other types.

Read the augmentation section at the bottom.


I disagree Psyren. Just because you can affect the creature this way does not mean it has lungs.

If they had no lungs the power would do nothing. Since by RAW it does something, they have lungs.

[Andezzar]

Read the augmentation section at the bottom.So you are saying that sharks have lungs?




If they had no lungs the power would do nothing. Since by RAW it does something, they have lungs.I can cast a fireball at a fire elemental all I want and the fire elemental would not cause any damage. The spell works and affects the target (dealing fire damage) but the target does not have any disadvantage from it (immunity to fire damage). The same will happen with any creature without lungs. The creature is affected by the spell (i.e. its lungs do not function properly), but that does not inconvenience it because it does not have any lungs.

[Psyren]

So you are saying that sharks have lungs?

No, I'm saying that they (and other aquatic creatures) are a specific exception as they do not "store air."


I can cast a fireball at a fire elemental all I want and the fire elemental would not cause any damage.

That would count as "doing nothing" which is what I said.

[Andezzar]

That would count as "doing nothing" which is what I said.There is no rule against a spell/power not significantly changing valid targets.

[Barstro]

That would count as "doing nothing" which is what I said.

This is a difference (at least in logic and computer programming" between "doing nothing" and "doing something, but that something not having an effect". Secondary events that rely on that "something" will either happen or not happen based on the interpretation.

Harkens back to a debate over, IIRC, ignoring dex, denying dex, losing dex bonus, all meant the same thing. I don't remember what it was about, but I remember I felt that the defender was not denied dex, so was not subject to precision damage (dex bonus was simply changed to +0), but there were well-reasoned arguments the other way too.

I disagree with Story about examples. Examples show what the writers intended, at least in a limited sense. Again, I don't remember what it was exactly, but I was looking up some rules because I could not figure out how A, B, and C interacted. They have perfect examples of every combination between A, B, C, D, and E, except for A, B, and C, and I was still left in the dark.

[Psyren]

This is a difference (at least in logic and computer programming" between "doing nothing" and "doing something, but that something not having an effect". Secondary events that rely on that "something" will either happen or not happen based on the interpretation.

True, but fireball is a poor example in this case regardless. Fireball can be detonated on an object or even empty point in space, so the presence or absence of a fire immune creature anywhere in the radius is meaningless, whether you specifically target that creature or not. You can fireball a fire elemental in order to roast the adjacent druid that summoned him if you want,

Crisis of Breath meanwhile specifically targets "a breathing humanoid." (Or animal, outsider, giant, fey etc.) A shark would therefore be an illegal target because they don't breathe, at least not using the definition of "breathing" that is in the spell, i.e. storing air in lungs.

[Necroticplague]

Crisis of Breath meanwhile specifically targets "a breathing humanoid." (Or animal, outsider, giant, fey etc.) A shark would therefore be an illegal target because they don't breathe, at least not using the definition of "breathing" that is in the spell, i.e. storing air in lungs.

Actually, it never defines breathing in that way. Yes, it mentions it empties their lunges, but never says they actually need lungs in the first place to be a target, just that they need to breath. So if you augment it, a will-o-wisp is still a valid target, despite being a floating, bioelectrical sponge. And because it doesn't have any different rules for using it on a target without lungs, they are effected in the exact same way as normal.

[Barstro]

Crisis of Breath meanwhile specifically targets "a breathing humanoid." (Or animal, outsider, giant, fey etc.) A shark would therefore be an illegal target because they don't breathe, at least not using the definition of "breathing" that is in the spell, i.e. storing air in lungs.

The shark is an invalid target because it is not a humanoid. The breathing part would just be dicta.

But let's look at it in arguendo, as if it was a sharkman; EDIT, or you spent power points. Which you probably did, and I wasn't paying attention.
Actual effect is "You compel the subject to purge its entire store of air in one explosive exhalation, and thereby disrupt the subject’s autonomic breathing cycle. The subject’s lungs do not automatically function again while the power’s duration lasts." All the other language says how to work with some of it.

You (caster)
Compel (word that means "must", as opposed to "may", or "cannot")
The subject (target of the spell)
Purge (remove)
Its entire store of air (all the air that it has)
In one explosive(instant effect)
Exhalation (how the air is lost)
And thereby (as a result of the action that was performed (relating to the purging of air))
Disrupt the subject's autonomic breathing cycle.

We can stop there. Unless there is some decent argument at the table, the sharkman loses all his air. As a shark breathes by water passing over gills and not storing air, he has lost 100% of zero. Couple this with the fact that gilled animals do not "exhale" and there is no initial effect that can cause the loss of the "automatic breathing cycle". Besides, sharks breath by swimming, not using lungs; there is no automatic breathing cycle. So; valid target (unless you rule that the powers arcane say "nope", and the caster gets to hold the spell), spell has its effect, effect is meaningless.

UNLESS, the sharkman is outside of the water and the "man" part of sharkman allows him to metabolize oxygen by use of lungs when not submerged. In that case, the effect would happen, he would lose the ability to breath with lungs while under the spell. This can be "cured" during the spell's duration by getting into the water and switching to gilled breathing.

EDIT; as a further aside and getting more off topic; a galloping horse does not breathe normally. At gallop, the act of running is what moves the diaphragm to bring in air. If centaurs are considered humanoids, they should be able to gallop to counteract the spell. This also takes them out of the fight, so it's more amusing than helpful.

[Andezzar]

True, but fireball is a poor example in this case regardless. Fireball can be detonated on an object or even empty point in space, so the presence or absence of a fire immune creature anywhere in the radius is meaningless, whether you specifically target that creature or not. You can fireball a fire elemental in order to roast the adjacent druid that summoned him if you want, Use acid arrow and an earth elemental then. The point stands.


Crisis of Breath meanwhile specifically targets "a breathing humanoid." (Or animal, outsider, giant, fey etc.) A shark would therefore be an illegal target because they don't breathe, at least not using the definition of "breathing" that is in the spell, i.e. storing air in lungs.There are definitions of to breathe (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/breathe) that do not require lungs, most notably:
to take in oxygen and give out carbon dioxide through natural processes
So yes a shark is indeed a valid target and it would not be meaningfully affected by the power despite the power working perfectly well.

@Barstro: all you wrote would apply to a regular shark as well. The power can be augmented to affect creatures of other types, among them animals.

[dascarletm]

The funny thing about multiple definitions, is that you need to pick the one that fits best in context. Specifically in this case the definition that says, "the process of taking air into and expelling it from the lungs." Since that definition is the best fit for the description of the spell.

[Andezzar]

The funny thing about multiple definitions, is that you need to pick the one that fits best in context. Specifically in this case the definition that says, "the process of taking air into and expelling it from the lungs." Since that definition is the best fit for the description of the spell.No, the target section is independent from the spell description. A breathing creature is a valid target but a breathing creature need not have lungs and thus is not hindered by the power, just as an earth elemental is a valid target for acid arrow and is not damaged by it.

[Psyren]

Use acid arrow and an earth elemental then. The point stands.

That can target objects too.


There are definitions of to breathe (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/breathe) that do not require lungs, most notably:

But there are definitions that do. (https://www.google.com/#q=define:breathe) Do you have a source that says your dictionary is more RAW than mine?

[Andezzar]

That can target objects too.So?




But there are definitions that do. (https://www.google.com/#q=define:breathe) Do you have a source that says your dictionary is more RAW than mine?Of course not, but wasn't your deduction that all creatures other than humans must have lungs? My point was that without explicitly saying so the rules do not specify it and since creatures other than humans and animals do not exist IRL we cannot use real life as a reference.

[Psyren]

So?

So you're comparing apples (a spell with a specific type of target) to oranges (a spell that is fired first and then worries about where it is going.) An earth elemental is a legal target for an acid arrow despite the fact that it probably won't do anything when it gets there. A shark is not a legal target for Crisis of Breath.


Of course not, but wasn't your deduction that all creatures other than humans must have lungs?

Not at all. You'll notice the power does not reference elementals, plants, constructs, undead...

[dascarletm]

No, the target section is independent from the spell description. A breathing creature is a valid target but a breathing creature need not have lungs and thus is not hindered by the power, just as an earth elemental is a valid target for acid arrow and is not damaged by it.

They're both part of the same spell or power in this case. So they're not truly independent. I'm not seeing any reasoning as to why the definition you chose for breathing is the valid one. You state your interpretation as RAW.

Earth elementals and the effects of acid arrows on them is completely irrelevant. The spell doesn't have a target portion, so your example is just flat out non-functional. Acid arrow creates an arrow of acid. That is the effect. That in turn can be directed towards any target of the caster's desire. There is no such thing as an invalid target.


Perhaps a better example would be awaken (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/awaken.htm)

It's target is: Animal or tree touched.

I'm unsure if a tree is defined in dnd, but assuming that it isn't, a tree can be defined a few different ways. Let's look at two

1. a woody perennial plant, typically having a single stem or trunk growing to a considerable height and bearing lateral branches at some distance from the ground.

2. a wooden structure or part of a structure.

Given the spell's description and context, we can assume that we use definition 1.

[Andezzar]

So you're comparing apples (a spell with a specific type of target) to oranges (a spell that is fired first and then worries about where it is going.) An earth elemental is a legal target for an acid arrow despite the fact that it probably won't do anything when it gets there. A shark is not a legal target for Crisis of Breath.Yes it is
You can augment this power in one or more of the following ways.
1. If you spend 2 additional power points, this power can also affect an animal, fey, giant, magical beast, or monstrous humanoid.
2. If you spend 4 additional power points, this power can also affect an aberration, dragon, or outsider in addition to the creature types mentioned above.
3. If you spend 6 additional power points, this power can affect up to four creatures all within a 20-ft.-radius burst.Neither of those augmentations mention anything about breathing (whatever definition you use). So as soon as the power is augmented all non-breathing creatures of the appropriate type become valid targets. The power does not produce lungs in such creatures and as such they are affected by the spell but not inconvenienced by it if they do not have lungs in the first place.

As for other examples of a valid target but no noticeable effect would be dominate person and a humanoid target that somehow has acquired immunity to mind-affecting effects.

As for the definition of breathing and its reliance on lungs: Since the material plane works as our world unless stated otherwise we can safely say that sharks do not have lungs. In game terms however they have the aquatic subtype:

An aquatic creature can breathe underwater.So breathing without having lungs is not a foreign concept to the rules. Now we now that sharks and other fish have organs similar to lungs which fulfill the same function.

Coming back to disintegration, creatures that do not exist in real life and require breathing eating and sleeping may require similar subsections of their body to fulfill those functions. However since we do not know how those creatures function we do not know whether those subsections would still function after being turned to dust. it would also be possible that each particle that makes up the creature (or the remaining dust) can still fulfill those functions.

[Psyren]

Neither of those augmentations mention anything about breathing (whatever definition you use).

That's a valid interpretation, but no more or less valid than leaving the word "breathing" intact and swapping out the creature type, which leaves us more or less at an impasse. It's a DM call at that point.

[Andezzar]

That's a valid interpretation, but no more or less valid than leaving the word "breathing" intact and swapping out the creature type, which leaves us more or less at an impasse. It's a DM call at that point.Actually applying the breathing restriction to the other types is not a valid interpretation for those augments.
breathing humanoid + animal + fey + giant + magical beast + monstrous humanoid is not equal to breathing humanoid + breathing animal + breathing fey + breathing giant + breathing magical beast + breathing monstrous humanoid. The augment allows to add those types to the list of valid targets. It does not restrict the addition to breathing creatures of the appropriate types. If you did not allow non-breathing creatures of those types, you would not be following the rule that allows creatures of that type.

[Psyren]

breathing humanoid + animal + fey + giant + magical beast + monstrous humanoid is not equal to breathing humanoid + breathing animal + breathing fey + breathing giant + breathing magical beast + breathing monstrous humanoid.)

But by the associative property, breathing (humanoid + animal + fey + giant + magical beast + monstrous humanoid) is equal to breathing humanoid + breathing animal + breathing fey + breathing giant + breathing magical beast + breathing monstrous humanoid.


The augment allows to add those types to the list of valid targets. It does not restrict the addition to breathing creatures of the appropriate types.

The wording is ambiguous and could in fact be read that way.

For your interpretation to be the only valid one, it would have to use wording like "If you spend 2 additional power points, this power can also affect any animal, fey..."

[Andezzar]

But by the associative property, breathing (humanoid + animal + fey + giant + magical beast + monstrous humanoid) is equal to breathing humanoid + breathing animal + breathing fey + breathing giant + breathing magical beast + breathing monstrous humanoid.The parentheses are not in the rules. Additionally I would like you to prove that the distributive property even applies here.

[dascarletm]

The parentheses are not in the rules. Additionally I would like you to prove that the distributive property even applies here.

(Neither are +'s) If you use ,'s then you get the same effect.

I have dirty hair, teeth and nails.

Could mean I have dirty hair, normal teeth and normal nails.

It could also mean I have dirty hair, dirty teeth and dirty nails.

For breathing to be independent you'd need breathing to be a subtype, or "breathing humanoids" to be a valid type.

[Psyren]

(Neither are +'s) If you use ,'s then you get the same effect.

I have dirty hair, teeth and nails.

Could mean I have dirty hair, normal teeth and normal nails.

It could also mean I have dirty hair, dirty teeth and dirty nails.

For breathing to be independent you'd need breathing to be a subtype, or "breathing humanoids" to be a valid type.

On the nose.

[dascarletm]

On the nose.

:smallbiggrin: Sorry for jumping in on your thunder there btw.

[Vogonjeltz]

So humanoids need not necessarily breathe and it says nothing about creatures of other types.

Dead humanoids aren't breathing, but all humanoids breathe.


•Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.

Bolded for emphasis.


So you are saying that sharks have lungs?

The game doesn't discuss lungs vs gills. Sharks have the animal type, which means they breathe. They have the aquatic subtype, which lets them breathe underwater. Going into any greater level of granularity is the DMs problem.