The Sage Advice =/= The Sage

[jkat718]

There has been some debate (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=18811779&postcount=828) over in Simple Rules Q&A D&D 5 (by RAW) I (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?366424-Simple-Q-amp-A-D-amp-D-5-(by-RAW)-I) over what, exactly, can be counted as RAW. There are four major sources of information that people seem to be taking rulings from, listed below:

The core rulebooks (The Player's Handbook (http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/rpg_playershandbook), Monster Manual (http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/monster-manual), and Dungeon Master's Guide (http://dnd.wizards.com/products/tabletop-games/rpg-products/dungeon-masters-guide))
The Sage Advice fansite (sageadvice.eu (http://www.sageadvice.eu/))
Mike Mearls' Twitter (@mikemearls (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/))
Jeremy Crawford's Twitter (@JeremyECrawford (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/))


The first source is obviously RAW, being quite literally where the rules are written.
The second source is not RAW, as per Vaynor's post, because it is not an official source.
The third source is not RAW, as per both Crawford (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/558355273048276992) and Mearls (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/558362644080365568) themselves.
The fourth source is quite murky, and the source of the debate. Jeremy Crawford said that that "Twitter is a way to be in touch with you, our fellow players and DMs. The upcoming FAQ is official" (source (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/518804989590777856)). Despite that, he has also stated that "any official ruling is made or approved by" himself (source (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/529674616147415040)). This (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/end-beginning) article from WotC announces that "For rules questions, Jeremy Crawford will take up the hallowed mantle of the Sage as we launch Sage Advice. Expect a variety of rulings from on high, advice on how to cut the Gordian Knots your players manage to tie, and insight into how and why the rules work the way they do." For those who don't know, the Sage Advice was a column from Dragon magazine, where players and DMs could get official answers to various questions, but I don't know whether those answers were considered RAW for the editions it related to.

Here is what I am asking: does Jeremy Crawford's advice in his capacity as the Sage qualify as RAW? For the purposes of this discussion, please refer to the fan website (source 2) as the "Sage Advice" or "Sage Advice website." Please also refer to Jeremy Crawford's position as "the Sage" and his rulings as coming from him (so not "the Sage's advice," because that would get confusing). If you want to refer to the old column from Dragon Magazine, titled "Sage Advice," please just call it "the Dragon articles" or something similar.

[MeeposFire]

Lol the historic can of worms this can open up.

As I recall back in the day this very question was often debated on the WotC boards on how official this advice was even as far back as 3e (and if you believe some even before then when it was even more well known in Dragon Mag).

I think you are going to get a bunch of differing answers but one of the biggest things that will come up was when he would state something as a rule and then if you look up the rule it would not say that at all which then brings up the question of whether yuo are interpreting the rule wrong, was the Sage back then advocating using that interpretation of the rules and therefor telling you to essentially rewrite the rules in the book (aka similar to an errata), or was he just mistaken. All are posited back in the day and the arguments of which he was could get heated.

[jkat718]

Lol the historic can of worms this can open up.
*snip*
the arguments of which he was could get heated.

Uh-oh... :smalleek: I guess I'll just have to prepare myself for this thread to blow up. I really just want one, definitive answer just for use in the Rules Q&A thread.

[MeeposFire]

Uh-oh... :smalleek: I guess I'll just have to prepare myself for this thread to blow up. I really just want one, definitive answer just for use in the Rules Q&A thread.

Well they could get heated back then but to be fair they got heated because of the specific argument that brought the sage up rather than the sage himself.

As an example I would use the question of whether or not a hell fire warlock can use a specific soul meld in order to use hellfire (which I would never bring up in a 3e discussion as it should be considered like politics and religion in a dinner discussion). Without getting into the details when that question was asked to the sage his answer was no it does not work, which on its own would have been fine perhaps, except that when he said why his reasoning had
nothing to do with the situation at hand which furthered the calls that he did not understand the question, he was extremely poorly supporting his choice, or that he was just really wrong.

So of course his answer was ignored by pretty much anybody and just served as a way to show why many did not trust his rulings and with a reason why.

Right now I am trying to recall if people ignored him because he was not official or that people just considered him unofficial regardless of the official stance just because few would trust his rulings.

[Dark Tira]

Uh-oh... :smalleek: I guess I'll just have to prepare myself for this thread to blow up. I really just want one, definitive answer just for use in the Rules Q&A thread.

It's not RAW though if and when errata comes out you can probably expect a lot of it to be similar to what Jeremy Crawford says.

Basically RAW just uses:
1. The Books
2. Official Errata

Also used are official FAQs but they tend to only be used as a type of clarifying document. So a FAQ that directly contradicts the books or errata isn't valid RAW. Sage Advice I believe is an unofficial FAQ and it doesn't even qualify for this limited standard.

At least this is how it was to the best of my knowledge I haven't really been paying much attention recently though.

[CrusaderJoe]

It's not RAW though if and when errata comes out you can probably expect a lot of it to be similar to what Jeremy Crawford says.

Basically RAW just uses:
1. The Books
2. Official Errata

Also used are official FAQs but they tend to only be used as a type of clarifying document. So a FAQ that directly contradicts the books or errata isn't valid RAW. Sage Advice I believe is an unofficial FAQ and it doesn't even qualify for this limited standard.

At least this is how it was to the best of my knowledge I haven't really been paying much attention recently though.

Sorry but if Jeremy Crawford uses any source to get out information then it can still be considered RAW. If the lead mechanic designer is explaining what they meant by mechanics by using twitter, a book, or through a telegram... It doesn't matter it is still word from the lead mechanic designer.

I take Jeremy Crawford's explanations as RAW and not just anything on Sage Advice. The other guys tend to explain things in how they would rule it at their games. WotC is afraid to put out anything "official" like a book or whatever of errata so they are playing it safe with the twitter game. WotC is walking on eggshells.

[Dark Tira]

Sorry but if Jeremy Crawford uses any source to get out information then it can still be considered RAW. If the lead mechanic designer is explaining what they meant by mechanics by using twitter, a book, or through a telegram... It doesn't matter it is still word from the lead mechanic designer.

I take Jeremy Crawford's explanations as RAW and not just anything on Sage Advice. The other guys tend to explain things in how they would rule it at their games. WotC is afraid to put out anything "official" like a book or whatever of errata so they are playing it safe with the twitter game. WotC is walking on eggshells.

Jeremy Crawford's tweets don't meet the standards for RAW but they are almost certainly a valid source for RAI. RAW usually doesn't ever end up exactly how the developers intended and developers saying what they meant for a rule to do after the fact doesn't change strict RAW unless it's actually in an errata document.

I agree that WotC is trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[Easy_Lee]

Well, calling someone an official Sage is a pretty hefty title. I don't think that calling Sage answers mere opinions does them justice. A single thread, possibly stickied, which catalogs sage questions and answers might be a good idea for the forum. We could use it as a good source of RAI, and possibly use it as basis for the way we think most DMs would rule on a given issue. Something like that could be very useful.

That said, I don't think Sage should be considered RAW, since the purpose of the RAW thread is to only post what's in the official books. One should not need an internet connection for RAW, nor should one need to catalog their own list of Sage rulings in case they should come up. A player doing something he knows is controversial might bring an answer from Crawford to his DM, but that does not mean that the DM should have known Crawford's ruling ahead of time. A DM is only responsible for having a relatively thorough understanding of the published materials, I believe.

Some questions, such as whether a familiar can use the Help action, and even controversial ones, such as whether a familiar qualifies as an ally (for SA purposes), can be answered via RAW. Other questions, such as whether one can use a single hand crossbow to produce its own bonus action attacks via crossbow expert, or whether or not a champion crit-ing on a 19 automatically hits with that attack, can't be answered via RAW alone and don't belong in that thread. Dedicating those to separate threads, or even one Sage thread, would be best in my opinion.

What do you guys think?

[archaeo]

Why does any of this matter, guys?

Who cares if Mearls doesn't have the same "authority" as Crawford? Both of them just spent literal years of their lives putting these rules together. No one else in the world can make that claim about 5e, other than the other members of their design team. When Mearls gives a ruling, he's not just blowing smoke, he's probably trying to give the best possible solution for a corner case in the rules, informed by his wealth of experience with the ruleset he helped write.

If you need the official WotC stamp of approval for rules clarifications and errata, then you'll have to wait a bit, as it seems they're busy with a variety of other things right now. They'd also like to get the input of the entire playerbase instead of whoever is motivated enough to tweet at them before they start rewriting the rules. In the meantime, Crawford and Mearls are just trying to be helpful, and taking their advice in that spirit seems like a good idea. No one on this board knows the intentions of the rules better than they do.

The entire concept of "RAW" is idiotic. The PHB is not a tome delivered from on high. It's a ruleset the designers themselves consider a living document, a set of game mechanics that are subject to revision. The only people for whom this matters are people who want to argue about elf games online.

[MeeposFire]

It's not RAW though if and when errata comes out you can probably expect a lot of it to be similar to what Jeremy Crawford says.

Basically RAW just uses:
1. The Books
2. Official Errata

Also used are official FAQs but they tend to only be used as a type of clarifying document. So a FAQ that directly contradicts the books or errata isn't valid RAW. Sage Advice I believe is an unofficial FAQ and it doesn't even qualify for this limited standard.

At least this is how it was to the best of my knowledge I haven't really been paying much attention recently though.

This is one of those things I am talking about. Some people will agree with this others don't. As a case in point CrusaderJoe is in the opposite camp where what is written is secondary to what a specific person says.


As for why or why not WotC will be doing actual errata and the like I do not agree with Crusader. I think the avoidance has more to do with the style of rules writing and DM use than fear. WotC has shown no fear in either 3e or 4e in this regard and I do not see this an impediment this time around, however there is a big difference in how the books are written and what the DM is expected to do. 3e and 4e were written with the idea of there being one way to operate and that you can change that if you want but 5e has been written with a lot more leeway in how you can read or adjudicate things. It is far less set in stone and seems to be written where the language is simpler and you are to interpret it more rather than trying to get as literal as possible.

I think this is why they have Mearls tweeting one thing even if it disagrees with the rules and with Crawford. This gives a subtle and intentional nod that it is ok to have different interpretations or to even not use the RAW or to change it if it works best for you.

[Dark Tira]

Why does any of this matter, guys?

Who cares if Mearls doesn't have the same "authority" as Crawford? Both of them just spent literal years of their lives putting these rules together. No one else in the world can make that claim about 5e, other than the other members of their design team. When Mearls gives a ruling, he's not just blowing smoke, he's probably trying to give the best possible solution for a corner case in the rules, informed by his wealth of experience with the ruleset he helped write.

If you need the official WotC stamp of approval for rules clarifications and errata, then you'll have to wait a bit, as it seems they're busy with a variety of other things right now. They'd also like to get the input of the entire playerbase instead of whoever is motivated enough to tweet at them before they start rewriting the rules. In the meantime, Crawford and Mearls are just trying to be helpful, and taking their advice in that spirit seems like a good idea. No one on this board knows the intentions of the rules better than they do.

The entire concept of "RAW" is idiotic. The PHB is not a tome delivered from on high. It's a ruleset the designers themselves consider a living document, a set of game mechanics that are subject to revision. The only people for whom this matters are people who want to argue about elf games online.

RAW is a useful tool to create simple answers by trying to keep the answer as objective as possible. It has very specific standards to keep the number of "correct" answers to a minimum and thus reduce the number of arguments concerning each question.

[MeeposFire]

Why does any of this matter, guys?

Who cares if Mearls doesn't have the same "authority" as Crawford? Both of them just spent literal years of their lives putting these rules together. No one else in the world can make that claim about 5e, other than the other members of their design team. When Mearls gives a ruling, he's not just blowing smoke, he's probably trying to give the best possible solution for a corner case in the rules, informed by his wealth of experience with the ruleset he helped write.

If you need the official WotC stamp of approval for rules clarifications and errata, then you'll have to wait a bit, as it seems they're busy with a variety of other things right now. They'd also like to get the input of the entire playerbase instead of whoever is motivated enough to tweet at them before they start rewriting the rules. In the meantime, Crawford and Mearls are just trying to be helpful, and taking their advice in that spirit seems like a good idea. No one on this board knows the intentions of the rules better than they do.

The entire concept of "RAW" is idiotic. The PHB is not a tome delivered from on high. It's a ruleset the designers themselves consider a living document, a set of game mechanics that are subject to revision. The only people for whom this matters are people who want to argue about elf games online.

The problem is that some people want to know what the rules actually say. Some want to know the best way to use them that fits the theme of the rules. Others want to know a better rule. Many can't tell the difference. Put them all in the same room and differences of opinion on how important the written word is and whos opinion is more worthwhile and it is an argument ready to happen.

Notice that even in the case of Mearls and Crawford you will have different opinions on what you should do and why. You will find groups where both of their advice is terrible with their groups. You will find some that have one better than the other. Many groups will find their advice to be helpful. Sometimes it is hard to tell when they are giving advice on what they would do and when they are saying "this is exactly what the rule says".

Even Crawford when he plays at home does not play a fully RAW game I promise you and that is Ok (in fact I think he would be the first to tell you that).

For the purposes of the question here though is what WotC considers the functional equivalent to RAW for when the inevitable conversation comes up with what is the default rule and not the popular working rule.

As an analogy I would use pi. Most people use and think of pi as being 3.14. This is the working rule idea. We use it because it works but if you want to get really technical it is not entirely accurate. This is the same as what could be the difference between what one designer says and what is written especially since what you have in your head could be messed when you put it into writing and in that case if what Crawford says something that directly contradicts what is written is he wrong or is he effectively telling you an errata? Just so you know the two sides will never agree on it one side will say he made a mistake the other will say he is right and that the book was merely written wrong and this is effectively an errata to change it so everybody knows what it should be.

[archaeo]

RAW is a useful tool to create simple answers by trying to keep the answer as objective as possible. It has very specific standards to keep the number of "correct" answers to a minimum and thus reduce the number of arguments concerning each question.

If RAW, as a concept, is supposed to "reduce the number of arguments," it's doing an absolutely awful and terrible job.

---------

Edited to add:


The problem is that some people want to know what the rules actually say. Some want to know the best way to use them that fits the theme of the rules. Others want to know a better rule. Many can't tell the difference. Put them all in the same room and differences of opinion on how important the written word is and whos opinion is more worthwhile and it is an argument ready to happen.

Notice that even in the case of Mearls and Crawford you will have different opinions on what you should do and why. You will find groups where both of their advice is terrible with their groups. You will find some that have one better than the other. Many groups will find their advice to be helpful. Sometimes it is hard to tell when they are giving advice on what they would do and when they are saying "this is exactly what the rule says".

This might matter if there were D&D police, swooping down on your games when you play it wrong. Since there aren't, why bother, except to be "more right" than somebody else in an argument? You know, in a game that openly tells you to change whatever you think needs changing if it makes your table happier?


Even Crawford when he plays at home does not play a fully RAW game I promise you and that is Ok (in fact I think he would be the first to tell you that).

Sure! So why should we care, again, what is RAW and what isn't?


For the purposes of the question here though is what WotC considers the functional equivalent to RAW for when the inevitable conversation comes up with what is the default rule and not the popular working rule.

Who cares what the "default rule" is? Why should it matter to anyone at all?

In other words, my answer to a rules question that Mearls or Crawford has weighed in on would be, "The rules say this, which some people interpret one way and other people interpret another. The designers have weighed in on one side. Do whatever you think works best for your game."

[Dark Tira]

If RAW, as a concept, is supposed to "reduce the number of arguments," it's doing an absolutely awful and terrible job.

Actually it does a great job. Reduction is not the same as elimination. The simple QA thread wouldn't be nearly so simple without RAW. Also RAW doesn't follow RAW so any arguments about RAW itself is outside the scope of RAW. :smallbiggrin:

[MeeposFire]

Actually it does a great job. Reduction is not the same as elimination. The simple QA thread wouldn't be nearly so simple without RAW. Also RAW doesn't follow RAW so any arguments about RAW itself is outside the scope of RAW. :smallbiggrin:

It does a great job at ending certain arguments but it is just as capable of starting a great many arguments since rules and laws are not as easy to adjudicate as you would hope them to be hence why they have justice systems and we use DMs.

Every edition has a number of arguments that the RAW just is not clear enough about or does not directly address ad so causes numerous arguments with little to no consensus.

[archaeo]

It does a great job at ending certain arguments but it is just as capable of starting a great many arguments since rules and laws are not as easy to adjudicate as you would hope them to be hence why they have justice systems and we use DMs.

Every edition has a number of arguments that the RAW just is not clear enough about or does not directly address ad so causes numerous arguments with little to no consensus.

Except those arguments would exist with or without people using RAW as a cudgel. And, as you can see in many places across this board, people constantly use RAW this way. One of the most obnoxious things you can say to someone, in my opinion, is, "Well, sure you can play the game that way, but it's a house rule."

The problem, as I see it, is that RAW is considered "better," and it shouldn't be.

[calebrus]

Here's the conversation that Vaynor and I had on it, spoilered below.






Sage Advice is not an official source, so answers based on that site are not answers based on RAW.

If someone posts an answer that isn't correct, or isn't technically RAW, feel free to point this out so the person who asked the question is clear, or simply post another answer to the poster correcting them. There is no need to get angry at someone posting answers; they are volunteering their time to help others, regardless of whether it is up to your standards or not.

As to Sage not being an official source, from the first link that jkat posted:
"For rules questions, Jeremy Crawford will take up the hallowed mantle of the Sage as we launch Sage Advice. Expect a variety of rulings from on high, advice on how to cut the Gordian Knots your players manage to tie, and insight into how and why the rules work the way they do."

As to someone posting an answer that isn't correct:
There are many times when more than one interpretation can be made. In these cases, does not the intent, as stated by the Official Rules Sage, come into play, because this can tell us which interpretation should be viewed as "correct" by intent? The extreme majority of disparities that occur are due to issues that can be interpreted different ways, resulting in more than one "RAW" answer being possible.
When this occurs, doesn't linking to the intent make sense when that information is available?


Calebrus,

The RAW thread is not for interpretations. It is meant for answering questions about the game as the rules are written in the books. If it comes down to interpretation, it does not have a place in the RAW Q&A thread. I understand completely that the intent of the rules can matter greatly in an actual game, but this is not the place for those questions or answers. The purpose of the thread is to determine the actual nature of the written rules on the game in order to judge what should be allowed in play (based on RAI, DM fiat, etc.). Sage Advice may be official answers, but it's official answers about how the rules are supposed to work or how they already do. "Rulings from on high" and RAW are quite different. Hopefully this answers your questions adequately, let me know if you have any further concerns.

~Vaynor


I understand that.
Just so we're clear though, we can or cannot link Sage in reference to an interpretation?
And if so, the post should simply begin with "Ask your DM, and here's why:"
As I said, different interpretations can and will occur because of the wording of some things, but your post made it appear that linking Sage shouldn't come into this thread, when the fact is that there are questions with which that information is valuable.

I don't mean to sound contrary here, but your message there kind of contradicts itself. At one point you state that "If it comes down to interpretation, it does not have a place in the RAW Q&A thread"
and then right after you say that "The purpose of the thread is to determine the actual nature of the written rules on the game in order to judge what should be allowed in play (based on RAI, DM fiat, etc.)."

This is precisely why I stated that a new thread should be started for further discussion.


Calebrus,

You can definitely link whatever you want to support your answer. The thread is not so strict that you would be unable to do that. I mostly said that so people would be careful about insinuating that sources that might not be considered RAW were so. "This is what the rulebook says, and here's what the Sage has to say on the subject" would be an appropriate post, I think. It's just important to remember that the Sage's posts are not necessarily RAW, even though they might be.

I did not mean to arbitrarily limit discussion with my post, the main intent was that people stop arguing with each other about what was able to be posted in the thread as well as flat-out telling others to stop posting certain things. This is the place of the moderators, not the posters. The rest of my post was merely meant as clarification on the purpose of the thread.

Interpretation of the rules, or discussion of RAI, does not really have a place in the RAW Q&A thread. What I meant with the second bullet point you quoted is that the purpose of the thread is to provide answers on RAW so that individuals can use that information for their own purposes and in their own games. For example, someone might post asking for clarification on whether class X can do Y with ability Z. An answer might say that, according to RAW, X can't do Y with Z. This information would clear up the confusion and allow the player/DM to make a decision on how that rule should affect their game, potentially basing their game on RAI vs. RAW (and deciding that ability Y can do Z regardless of RAW). Does that make sense? I realize my initial post may have been a bit confusing.

If you would like to start a thread for discussion on RAW vs. RAI (especially concerning the Sage as it relates to 5e) feel free to do so. I, personally, was not interesting in starting such a thread so I chose not to. Feel free to quote these PMs in the thread if you feel it would be helpful for the discussion, but keep in mind that this is just my opinion on the subject and definitely not a hard ruling on the thread as a mod. My main concern as a moderator, first and foremost, is that people were telling others what to do in the thread.

~Vaynor


So what we should take away from this, in my opinion, is that the RAW thread is there to answer questions that can be answered by the rules with no interpretation.
But that's not going to happen often, because those questions can be answered by people opening books.
Many questions arise that can be interpreted different ways. When this happens (and it has and will continue to happen), we should give the best answer that we can by the rules, and if the intent has been stated somewhere, that becomes relevant information.

Consider, if a rule and be interpreted in two different ways:
1. The rule says X
2. The rule says Y
3. There is information on developer intent available which points directly to one of the above interpretations as being intended and therefore the "correct" interpretation

If the written word is in any way ambiguous, murky, or can otherwise be read multiple ways, then designer intent tells us how to read the RAW. If that information is available, it becomes paramount, and absolutely relevant.
Just make sure that you mention this when citing it.

[MeeposFire]

If RAW, as a concept, is supposed to "reduce the number of arguments," it's doing an absolutely awful and terrible job.

---------

Edited to add:



This might matter if there were D&D police, swooping down on your games when you play it wrong. Since there aren't, why bother, except to be "more right" than somebody else in an argument? You know, in a game that openly tells you to change whatever you think needs changing if it makes your table happier?





Sure! So why should we care, again, what is RAW and what isn't?



Who cares what the "default rule" is? Why should it matter to anyone at all?

In other words, my answer to a rules question that Mearls or Crawford has weighed in on would be, "The rules say this, which some people interpret one way and other people interpret another. The designers have weighed in on one side. Do whatever you think works best for your game."

The reason why some should care is because they value it. You may not. I may or may not but when somebody asks they clearly care.

As for why RAW is a good starting point it is generally a good idea to list a default and then list alternatives if you think it is better this way we all are coming from the same place and we can see why we are doing what we are doing. IN terms of whether you should use the RAW I would agree is dependent on your game situation but I would say it is beneficial to realize when you are choosing to use it or ignore it.

As an example the rules on bonus action spell usage are screwy. The RAW does nothing if you cast the bonus action spell last, if you do use a bonus action cantrip it still forces you to use a cantrip as your action spell even though you used a cantrip already, and numerous other issues.

If asked for the rule I would give you the actual rules insanity and all though I would also recommend not using that rule and instead use something else like this "when you cast 2 or more spells in a turn and one of them is a bonus action spell at least one of the spells cast that turn must be a cantrip" as that fits all the interpretations that the designers talk about and close an obvious loop hole. I still would tell you that despite fulfilling all the intent of the designers that rule is not RAW and the RAW has loop holes.

[Dark Tira]

Here's the conversation that Vaynor and I had on it, spoilered below.






So what we should take away from this, in my opinion, is that the RAW thread is there to answer questions that can be answered by the rules with no interpretation.
But that's not going to happen often, because those questions can be answered by people opening books.
Many questions arise that can be interpreted different ways. When this happens (and it has and will continue to happen), we should give the best answer that we can by the rules, and if the intent has been stated somewhere, that becomes relevant information.

Consider, if a rule and be interpreted in two different ways:
1. The rule says X
2. The rule says Y
3. There is information on developer intent available which points directly to one of the above interpretations as being intended and therefore the "correct" interpretation

If the written word is in any way ambiguous, murky, or can otherwise be read multiple ways, then designer intent tells us how to read the RAW. If that information is available, it becomes paramount, and absolutely relevant.
Just make sure that you mention this when citing it.

The bolded part is wrong because those are exactly the most common questions.

[archaeo]

The reason why some should care is because they value it. You may not. I may or may not but when somebody asks they clearly care.

I would contend that the nicest thing to do is to disabuse them of the notion that "RAW" is an important thing to worry about. You cannot play the game wrong. If you are having fun, it does not matter what the books say. If your fun would be improved by knowing that you're playing it "right," then you're just caring more about the rules than the game, in my opinion.

Now, I can see a place for understanding the rules as being a good way to have a foundation for making your own changes. Sure. It's valuable to know that, for example, the designers balanced the game around the idea that the average adventuring day includes two short rests and six to eight encounters of medium to hard difficulty. But RAWism rarely stops there, does it?

[CrusaderJoe]

This is one of those things I am talking about. Some people will agree with this others don't. As a case in point CrusaderJoe is in the opposite camp where what is written is secondary to what a specific person says.


As for why or why not WotC will be doing actual errata and the like I do not agree with Crusader. I think the avoidance has more to do with the style of rules writing and DM use than fear. WotC has shown no fear in either 3e or 4e in this regard and I do not see this an impediment this time around, however there is a big difference in how the books are written and what the DM is expected to do. 3e and 4e were written with the idea of there being one way to operate and that you can change that if you want but 5e has been written with a lot more leeway in how you can read or adjudicate things. It is far less set in stone and seems to be written where the language is simpler and you are to interpret it more rather than trying to get as literal as possible.

I think this is why they have Mearls tweeting one thing even if it disagrees with the rules and with Crawford. This gives a subtle and intentional nod that it is ok to have different interpretations or to even not use the RAW or to change it if it works best for you.


My main point wasn't that others should take Jeremy as RAW, just that the media outlet doesn't matter.

Mearles has tweeted that his responses are how he would rule it at his game.

The fear though comes from 3e and 4e outcry. They are so afraid of backlash they are playing it very very safe. If an errata came out and everything exploded? Hasbro (if they aren't already) would tell some people to make D&D 5.5 or 6e... Hasbro has wotc walking on eggshells.

[archaeo]

The fear though comes from 3e and 4e outcry. They are so afraid of backlash they are playing it very very safe. If an errata came out and everything exploded? Hasbro (if they aren't already) would tell some people to make D&D 5.5 or 6e... Hasbro has wotc walking on eggshells.

What?

I mean, for starters, Hasbro has no reason to be breathing down the D&D team's collective neck. The edition is selling extremely well by all accounts, it received very positive critical reviews and press, etc. They're not walking on eggshells; by any reasonable standard, they should be making big moves right now, taking advantage of their successful release. Things like the recent announce of Sword Coast Legends and the like are part of that.

And that's the real reason we're not seeing instant errata: they're busy doing other things. Mearls and Crawford are probably editing the upcoming books, and figuring out the new licensing materials, and other, you know, high-level strategy junk. They assume (quite rightly!) that many people haven't had a chance to really dig into the entire ruleset, and they're waiting to get feedback back from the entire fan base and not just the few hundred people who really care about "official" rules or RAW or whatever you want to call it.

As for Hasbro calling for 5.5e or 6e, I have to think that if 5e failed so spectacularly right now, Hasbro would just shut down the division and keep 5e on the shelves, unchanged and unchanging. Why throw good money after bad?

[jkat718]

Here's my take on the matter: any ruling from WotC, whether from Mike Mearls or Chris Perkins, is neither RAW nor RAI. Rulings from Jeremy Crawford and announcements from the WotC are RAI, and therefore have no place in the Q&Q by RAW thread except where the RAW is unclear by someone's perspective. In those cases, RAI > RAW. The only thing that is consistently RAW is what is a) written in the core rulebooks (or supplements/adventure books, if their material is what's being discussed) and b) clearly accepted. Obviously, the second point has inherent flaws as to what is or is not "clearly accepted," but a good rule of thumb is that, if there are more than 5 people arguing on each side, it's unclear. Here are some examples:



Debate:
RAW Status:
RAI Status:
Result:


Can an equipped shield still be used as an improvised weapon?
Unclear: there is nothing said specifically about shields as improvised weapons.
Clear: Jeremy Crawford says "yes" here (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/565902521399394304).
Clear: Yes, an equipped shield can still be used as an improvised weapon.


Do the level requirements for Eldritch Invocations refer to character level or Warlock level?
Unclear: there is nothing said specifically about Eldritch Invocation level requirements.
Clear: Mearls said it's character level (source), but that's irrelevant. However, Crawford said that it's sorcerer level here (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/529655572862210048).
Clear: The level requirements for Eldritch Invocations refer to sorcerer level.


What is the proficiency bonus for level 5?
Clear: the PHB says it's +3 on page 15, under Character Advancement.
Irrelevant: the RAW is clear.
Clear: The proficiency bonus for level 5 is +3.


Does choking someone follow the rules for holding your breath or for suffocating?
Unclear: there is nothing said specifically about choking someone.
Unclear: Mearls said that it follows the rules for suffocating here (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/521376369981153280), but that's irrelevant. Therefore, there is nothing said specifically about choking someone.
Unclear: ask your DM, or find someone to argue with here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?63-D-amp-D-5e-Next).



As far as the Rules Q&A by Raw goes, I'd say that the second example is fine, as long as you make it clear that it's from RAI, and cite the Sage. This does technically follow the rules for that thread, assuming the Sage is considered a valid "FAQ" source:


Feel free to quote or link to relevant rules in the SRD, Errata, or FAQ that supports your answer. (You may want to give your answer and then modify it to add support – otherwise someone else may answer while you’re assembling yours.)

[Theodoxus]

IMO, RAI is far more important than RAW, anyway. As a DM, I'm far more interested in why something was codified they way it was than the actual hard coding. RAI provides that why far more often than RAW. An official RAI helps keep the RAW in line with you know, the intent of the rules. RAW can be subject to all kinds of problems; lazy editing, spilled coffee, unpaid interns, left hand not reading the right hands paragraphs... but when you get to the RAI, you can more easily make decisions on the fly that keep the spirit of the game without ruining the flow.

Outside of that, I pretty much just use the rules as guidelines anyway. But I understand that not everyone does that, and having precise codification is a comfort.

[CrusaderJoe]

IMO, RAI is far more important than RAW, anyway. As a DM, I'm far more interested in why something was codified they way it was than the actual hard coding. RAI provides that why far more often than RAW. An official RAI helps keep the RAW in line with you know, the intent of the rules. RAW can be subject to all kinds of problems; lazy editing, spilled coffee, unpaid interns, left hand not reading the right hands paragraphs... but when you get to the RAI, you can more easily make decisions on the fly that keep the spirit of the game without ruining the flow.

Outside of that, I pretty much just use the rules as guidelines anyway. But I understand that not everyone does that, and having precise codification is a comfort.

RAI, the only real defense against Pun Pun.

[Dalebert]

People care about the RAW because players and the DM come to the table with certain expectations. If those expectations don't match, there will be some degree of conflict that will then need to be resolved. DMs can come up with however many "house rules" they want but it gets frustrating for players to keep up with a bunch of things that veer from the RAW. Having really vague RAW that's open primarily to DM interpretation leaves players feeling a bit helpless and on shaky ground.

That's no an opinion about what's RAW or not. Just saying it matters.

[xyianth]

People care about the RAW because players and the DM come to the table with certain expectations. If those expectations don't match, there will be some degree of conflict that will then need to be resolved. DMs can come up with however many "house rules" they want but it gets frustrating for players to keep up with a bunch of things that veer from the RAW. Having really vague RAW that's open primarily to DM interpretation leaves players feeling a bit helpless and on shaky ground.

That's no an opinion about what's RAW or not. Just saying it matters.

There are two different situations to account for: players moving from table to table (like adventure league or at local gaming stores and conventions) and players that stick primarily to the same group. The latter will have no issue with any amount of homebrew or houserules. For that case, the distinction between RAW and RAI only matters as much as the group wants it to matter. For the other case, the difference of expectations can clearly lead to conflict and should therefore limit it to RAW as much as is possible. As for including the opinions of designers from twitter as RAW... I strenuously disagree. It should not be an exercise in internet research to determine the RAW state. If WotC wants to package up all the rules clarifications from twitter and publish an official errata, then it can become RAW. As long as those clarifications only exist online in some guys' twitter feeds (yes I know who they are) the best status they can hope for is that some people will consider them RAI. That said, I know that some (many?) will not share this view, so when discussing things here, I plan on at least stipulating any assumptions made on ambiguous rulings that are relevant to whatever is being discussed. That way, those that rule differently can feel free to disregard/ignore as they like.

[jkat718]

There are two different situations to account for: players moving from table to table (like adventure league or at local gaming stores and conventions) and players that stick primarily to the same group. The latter will have no issue with any amount of homebrew or houserules.

I wish...my players ban all homebrew, and hate houseruling. :smallannoyed:

There seems to be one major sticking point for many people, namely whether or not we actually need RAW. I would like to point out that this is not the discussion that this thread is intended to answer, and actively counterproductive, due to its being quite a hot button topic. Please remember that we are only trying to come to a consensus on whether any of the following can/should be considered RAW:

Jeremy Crawford


That's it! Mike Mearls has already declared himself non-RAW, as has Chris Perkins. The Sage Advice website is fan-run, and obviously not RAW. The only issue we should be discussing here is Jeremy Crawford and his RAW-ness*.

*not a word

[Theodoxus]

You won't. That's the lovely thing about the internet. Everyone has an opinion, and sometimes you just won't get consensus.

Me? Rules as Written require something Written - on paper, or at least PDF. Twitter is ephemeral and as far as I'm concerned, "not legally binding".

So, I'll never consider anything Crawford posts as RAW until it's codified in a (e)Book or errata.

But there's no reason that you and your table can't take the opposite stance. It has zero bearing on me and mine... see? lovely.

[Kryx]

So, I'll never consider anything Crawford posts as RAW until it's codified in a (e)Book or errata.
This seems overly specific in order to reject the modern aproach of using Twitter. If WoTC took what they consider official rulings and put them on their own site's FAQ instead then you'd accept it.

You just don't like the medium that they're using. It doesn't change the rulings.


To answer the question:
Even if Crawford isn't RAW he's definitely RAI. He is stating how things are either written or intended. Being the lead designer I see no reason to not take his words as law.

[archaeo]

As for including the opinions of designers from twitter as RAW... I strenuously disagree. It should not be an exercise in internet research to determine the RAW state. If WotC wants to package up all the rules clarifications from twitter and publish an official errata, then it can become RAW.


Me? Rules as Written require something Written - on paper, or at least PDF. Twitter is ephemeral and as far as I'm concerned, "not legally binding".

So, I'll never consider anything Crawford posts as RAW until it's codified in a (e)Book or errata.

I feel like I'll regret getting into the semantic weeds on this, but what does "RAW" even mean? What are we even supposed to think about "not legally binding"? Legally where? At the International D&D Olympics?

Is a rule better if it's "RAW"? If Crawford provides a superior rule that improves your game or fixes a problem you see in it, but he does it on Twitter, do you have to soldier on with the crap rule because it's not RAW? Why? In what circumstances?

Is it different if Crawford writes it on the WotC website? Why? The same person is communicating the same rules. Or you say it has to be on paper, Theodoxus; does paper have some powerful authority-granting properties, or is it just that we have to take the W in RAW extremely seriously for other reasons?


Please remember that we are only trying to come to a consensus on whether any of the following can/should be considered RAW:

Jeremy Crawford


That's it! Mike Mearls has already declared himself non-RAW, as has Chris Perkins. The Sage Advice website is fan-run, and obviously not RAW. The only issue we should be discussing here is Jeremy Crawford and his RAW-ness*.

The reason people are off topic is that you're asking for some kind of local consensus on a meaningless question.

Crawford had made his position totally clear: he's a lead developer of 5e who will be writing the WotC-hosted Sage Advice column and is considered by his co-head designer to be the rules expert. In between the release of the 5e PHB and the forthcoming start of his rules column, he's been providing insight into the designers' intent via Twitter. Presumably, he's doing it in the spirit of 5e (which he did, after all, help write), which is pretty clear throughout that DMs should make whatever choices fit their needs and their tables' desires.

Note well how nobody at WotC has mentioned "official" or "RAW." At best, that "The End of the Beginning" article you cited suggests that Crawford will offer "rulings from on high." There is no suggestion, whatsoever, that there's going to be anything like "official errata" right away. The developers don't seem interested in doing that; they'd rather speak in terms of rulings. I imagine that the "official errata" will wait until after the next few rounds of surveys are completed, so they can just institute 5.1e or whatever they'll call it all at once. And I imagine that Crawford is going to spend a lot of time in his columns saying things like "We intended this" and "If you want to you can do this" and so on and so forth.

Because worrying about what's RAW and what's RAI is a big thicket no one needs to drag themselves through, jkat.

[Theodoxus]

Is it different if Crawford writes it on the WotC website? Why? The same person is communicating the same rules. Or you say it has to be on paper, Theodoxus; does paper have some powerful authority-granting properties, or is it just that we have to take the W in RAW extremely seriously for other reasons?


Why? Because I have ready access to the WotC website. If something is tweeted out, I don't see it until some third party brings it up. I'm happy you don't mind that format - I happen to mind it very much.

As for dealing with crappy rules - I've already stated that me and my table are perfectly happy with homebrew fixes to problems we perceive. We don't play AL - I tried it when it first came out, and ran into the exact issues expressed on this forum back in August - different DMs had different interpretations for some pretty meaty class/race combinations that make playing the same AL character at different tables problematic at best.

Adventure's League isn't Pathfinder Society - as much as they tried to emulate it - it doesn't work well in a Rulings not Rules environment.

[Kryx]

Why? Because I have ready access to the WotC website. If something is tweeted out, I don't see it until some third party brings it up. I'm happy you don't mind that format - I happen to mind it very much.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/with_replies problem solved. You now have access to every ruling Crawford makes on Twitter.
Oh wait, that didn't change it? Figured.

No logical reason to rule this way other than "I like paper, not Twitter"

[Theodoxus]

You're correct - and funnily enough, your disapproval with my peculiarities 1) has no affect on me and 2) has no affect on your game and 3) has no affect on my game.

But, I've duly noted it in my GiantITP handy handbook of personalities. Grats! You made the book!

[CrusaderJoe]

No logical reason to rule this way other than "I like paper, not Twitter"

Yes this.

Which given the fact that wotc is so afraid of the digital age it isn't surprising to see people act this way.

[Kryx]

You're correct - and funnily enough, your disapproval with my peculiarities 1) has no affect on me and 2) has no affect on your game and 3) has no affect on my game.

You're entirely welcome to houserule this in your home game.

But this thread is about what should be expected for proof: specifically for the RAW thread and forum discussions/debates Crawford's wording should be considered rule. WoTC (Mearls) treats his tweets are rules official, so should we.

[pwykersotz]

My personal belief is that Crawford's tweets should be taken as RAW.

I also believe that RAW in a vacuum is a silly thing given the extremes it is contorted into. RAW ceases to become useful when the rules are put through the collective internet hive-mind. Exploits will be discovered that are "by the book" that break the game. Once this happens, RAW is not doing anyone any favors except for the .01% of DM's who play games like that. This leads to new DM's and people who are honestly confused being bullied online (yes, I've watched it happen, I stick by the term) into accepting ludicrous premises with the expectation that it's how the game ought to be played.

We basically need a third and fourth category to be marginally useful. Extrapolation as side-by-side with RAW and RAI, and Exploit as a subcategory of RAW. Chain Wish/Simulacrum? Exploit. Crits auto-hitting? Extrapolation until Crawford clarified, then RAW. And so on.

Just my 2cp and (apparently) unpopular opinion.

[xyianth]

I feel like I'll regret getting into the semantic weeds on this, but what does "RAW" even mean? What are we even supposed to think about "not legally binding"? Legally where? At the International D&D Olympics?

Is a rule better if it's "RAW"? If Crawford provides a superior rule that improves your game or fixes a problem you see in it, but he does it on Twitter, do you have to soldier on with the crap rule because it's not RAW? Why? In what circumstances?


For me, the distinction between RAW and RAI is important for finding, discussing, and resolving ambiguities. I am absolutely not advocating that you or anyone should run their games purely by what was printed. (in my terminology, RAW) We've all seen what that leads to before. To give an example of why I find it useful, take the auto-hit on critical issue. RAW, in my terms, appears to state that champions still need to hit in order to gain double damage. Common sense disagrees with that, and it appears that Crawford does as well. So, for me, RAW rules one way, RAI rules another. Personally I'll rule RAI on that issue at my games.


https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/with_replies problem solved. You now have access to every ruling Crawford makes on Twitter.
Oh wait, that didn't change it? Figured.

No logical reason to rule this way other than "I like paper, not Twitter"

Snarkiness aside, thank you for the link. I'm not changing my definition of RAW to include it, but it certainly makes it easier to lookup RAI clarifications for me.


You're entirely welcome to houserule this in your home game.

But this thread is about what should be expected for proof: specifically for the RAW thread and forum discussions/debates Crawford's wording should be considered rule. WoTC (Mearls) treats his tweets are rules official, so should we.

My main problem with using the term RAW this way is that it overloads the term. If RAW includes clarifications from designers, how do you refer specifically to what is printed in order to discuss ambiguities? It is not like calling those clarifications RAI will, in any way, weaken them. RAW only rulings in any edition lead to some pretty crazy things, which means outside of theorycraft, RAI will mostly be used for actual games.


We basically need a third and fourth category to be marginally useful. Extrapolation as side-by-side with RAW and RAI, and Exploit as a subcategory of RAW. Chain Wish/Simulacrum? Exploit. Crits auto-hitting? Extrapolation until Crawford clarified, then RAW. And so on.


This could also work. As I have stated, the problem for me lies in terminology. When those potential exploit discussions happen, and they will eventually, we need a way of distinguishing what has been published from what was intended. Crawford and Mearls are doing us a great service in 5e by providing their intent (see what I did there) in a more efficient way than Sage Advice ever did. Hopefully, having the actual designers do this will also prevent answers that make no logical sense coming from them, which is why many of us stopped paying attention to Sage Advice in previous editions.

[pwykersotz]

My main problem with using the term RAW this way is that it overloads the term. If RAW includes clarifications from designers, how do you refer specifically to what is printed in order to discuss ambiguities? It is not like calling those clarifications RAI will, in any way, weaken them. RAW only rulings in any edition lead to some pretty crazy things, which means outside of theorycraft, RAI will mostly be used for actual games.

Quoting the source (PHB 134, DMG 72, Dragon 130, Crawford Tweet [link]) is the time honored method of distinguishing source of RAW to discuss ambiguities.


This could also work. As I have stated, the problem for me lies in terminology. When those potential exploit discussions happen, and they will eventually, we need a way of distinguishing what has been published from what was intended. Crawford and Mearls are doing us a great service in 5e by providing their intent (see what I did there) in a more efficient way than Sage Advice ever did. Hopefully, having the actual designers do this will also prevent answers that make no logical sense coming from them, which is why many of us stopped paying attention to Sage Advice in previous editions.

Agreed. Well said.

[toapat]

his wealth of experience with the ruleset he helped write.

This is not justification for believing the commentary from a developer as whole cloth truth. The rules, until wizards publishes a formal errata document for the game, are only guidelines and not necessarily even based on the current state of the rules but based on a form from before release of the rules.

Does the game need fixing, sure. There's moon druid, inspiration, and the total exclusion of advantage/disadvantage that breaks that mechanic. but until WOTC prints true errata, use a supercarrier worth of salt

[jkat718]

I am personally advocating for the codification of the RAW/RAI interaction for the--decidedly unclear--ruleset of 5e. I think, in accordance with this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?398688-The-Sage-Advice-The-Sage&p=18822628#post18822628) post, the first and second options should be considered RAI, the third should be RAW, and the fourth should be...what? Also RAW? The third one, if the RAI is clear, but contradictory, then it should just considered a house rule, and ignored (unless it's errata).

In the chart below, the first line gives the RAW status, the second (if it's there) is advice for DMs, the last (whatever number) is advice for players.



Clear RAW:
Unclear RAW


Clear, similar RAI:
Use the RAW.
RAW is unclear.
Use the RAI.
Ask your DM.


Clear, dissimilar RAI:
Use the RAW.
Ignore the RAI.
Ask your DM.
RAW is unclear.
Use the RAI.
Ask your DM.


Unclear, similar RAI:
Use the RAW.
RAW is unclear.
RAI is unclear.
Ask your DM.


Unclear, dissimilar RAI:
Use the RAW.
Ignore the RAI.
Ask your DM.
RAW is unclear.
RAI is unclear.
Ask your DM.


Absent RAI:
Use the RAW.
RAW is unclear.
Good luck.
Ask your DM.



For this, Errata would be considered RAI, except where the RAW is dissimilar and the Errata is clear. Then, it's still considered RAI, but super-encouraged.

[calebrus]

Your entire chart presupposes the condition that the RAW is more important than the RAI.
Many of us disagree with that assessment.
In fact, the entire design philosophy of 5e (Make Rulings, Not Rules) disagrees with that assessment as well.
In this edition, by design, the Intent is more important than the exact Wording.

[SiuiS]

The concept of RAW and priority canonicity is flawed, outdated, and does not apply to 5e.

[calebrus]

The concept of RAW and priority canonicity is flawed, outdated, and does not apply to 5e.

Exactly. I'll even go one further and state that the entire concept of a RAW thread is antiquated in regards to 5e, and it *should* be a RAW/RAI thread rather than just a RAW thread.

[Dark Tira]

Your entire chart presupposes the condition that the RAW is more important than the RAI.
Many of us disagree with that assessment.
In fact, the entire design philosophy of 5e (Make Rulings, Not Rules) disagrees with that assessment as well.
In this edition, by design, the Intent is more important than the exact Wording.

It's not that RAW is more important than RAI it's that if you're answering questions by RAW then RAW answers would naturally supersede RAI answers.

Edited to Add:


Exactly. I'll even go one further and state that the entire concept of a RAW thread is antiquated in regards to 5e, and it *should* be a RAW/RAI thread rather than just a RAW thread.

If a question isn't answerable by RAW it generally isn't a simple question.

[calebrus]

If a question isn't answerable by RAW it generally isn't a simple question.

Can I Twin a scrorching ray?
Simple question.
Some interpret the RAW as Yes, others as No.
Neither answer is incorrect by the RAW.

The intent is No.
Knowing the intent is paramount in adjudicating this particular question.

What about chain lightning?
Still a simple question, and yet even some of those who agree that scorching ray cannot be Twinned claim that chain lightning can.

5e needs both a RAW and a RAI thread so that DMs can make calls in an informed manner.

[Easy_Lee]

5e needs both a RAW and a RAI thread so that DMs can make calls in an informed manner.

I agree.

It's certainly true to say that the right ruling in a given situation depends heavily on the game and situation. Using 3.5 as an example (sorry, touchy subject I know, but bear with me), we used tiers as a tool for DMs to keep everyone in the same power range. In 5e, consider the polearm mastery fighter with dueling, a shield, and a quarterstaff. This is a very potent character. It may not be a good idea to let a player do this in a party of less optimized characters. However, if he's playing with a warlock 2 / sorcerer, a keen mind and summons-heavy conjurer, or other similarly optimized characters, it's probably fine.

That said, not all DMs are experienced enough to exercise such discretion. For them, using RAI as a basis for rules is probably the simplest, most consistent thing to do. Furthermore, having a consistent basis for rulings is very important in leagues. And furthermore, knowing what was intended by a given rule gives us insight into what was intended with the rest.

Finally, keeping RAI in a separate thread will make it very easy to distinguish the two in a debate. I've noticed that much of the debate on these forums stems from posters' disagreements between whether to use RAW or RAI. If there's a clear difference between these two, it might mitigate some of those heated arguments.

So, in short, I very much agree that a RAI thread would be useful.

[calebrus]

Can a caster that uses a weapon in one hand and a focus in his other hand cast spells with somatic components?
Another simple question.

Strict reading of RAW says No, he needs a hand free.

The Intention is that he can, because he has a focus in one hand, and that focus can be used in place of material components, and he can use the same hand that manipulates the mats to manipulate the somatic portion, thereby allowing a focus to circumvent both somatic and material.
But strictly reading RAW, a focus is literally useless, and even a hindrance in many cases. So why would anyone ever use one, under any circumstances?

[xyianth]

Can a caster that uses a weapon in one hand and a focus in his other hand cast spells with somatic components?
Another simple question.

Strict reading of RAW says No, he needs a hand free.

The Intention is that he can, because he has a focus in one hand, and that focus can be used in place of material components, and he can use the same hand that manipulates the mats to manipulate the somatic portion, thereby allowing a focus to circumvent both somatic and material.
But strictly reading RAW, a focus is literally useless, and even a hindrance in many cases. So why would anyone ever use one, under any circumstances?

First, let me state that I agree with the intention to allow focuses to replace both somatic and material components. But to directly answer your RAW question, technically a quarterstaff is both an arcane focus and a 1-handed weapon. As a result, even using the RAW interpretation of how focuses work, there is a situation where it is relevant: the arcane caster wielding a quarterstaff as a weapon can ignore material components. Again, I think this is far too narrow to be the intended way they work, but the RAW ruling does actually have an impact.

[calebrus]

First, let me state that I agree with the intention to allow focuses to replace both somatic and material components. But to directly answer your RAW question, technically a quarterstaff is both an arcane focus and a 1-handed weapon. As a result, even using the RAW interpretation of how focuses work, there is a situation where it is relevant: the arcane caster wielding a quarterstaff as a weapon can ignore material components. Again, I think this is far too narrow to be the intended way they work, but the RAW ruling does actually have an impact.

It's more of a question posed in regards to Clerics and Paladins using a shield with their holy symbol on it.
Why would they even specifically let you put your holy symbol on your shield if it still required a free hand?
You see my point.

[Psikerlord]

Why does any of this matter, guys?

Who cares if Mearls doesn't have the same "authority" as Crawford? Both of them just spent literal years of their lives putting these rules together. No one else in the world can make that claim about 5e, other than the other members of their design team. When Mearls gives a ruling, he's not just blowing smoke, he's probably trying to give the best possible solution for a corner case in the rules, informed by his wealth of experience with the ruleset he helped write.

If you need the official WotC stamp of approval for rules clarifications and errata, then you'll have to wait a bit, as it seems they're busy with a variety of other things right now. They'd also like to get the input of the entire playerbase instead of whoever is motivated enough to tweet at them before they start rewriting the rules. In the meantime, Crawford and Mearls are just trying to be helpful, and taking their advice in that spirit seems like a good idea. No one on this board knows the intentions of the rules better than they do.

The entire concept of "RAW" is idiotic. The PHB is not a tome delivered from on high. It's a ruleset the designers themselves consider a living document, a set of game mechanics that are subject to revision. The only people for whom this matters are people who want to argue about elf games online.I agree. RAW is useful as a guide but that's about it. What matters is how your particular table interprets the rules, what optional rules you use, and what do houserules you implement. For grey areas like stealth, RAW doesnt help very much. Every time you sit down to a new table of DnD, you will have to ask questions about how stealth is used, do you use the optional flanking and marking rules, do you have any houserules I should know about, etc - whatever rules aspects you are concerned about. The "rulings not rules" approach of 5e is it's primary feature, not a bug.

[jkat718]

Your entire chart presupposes the condition that the RAW is more important than the RAI.
Many of us disagree with that assessment.
In fact, the entire design philosophy of 5e (Make Rulings, Not Rules) disagrees with that assessment as well.
In this edition, by design, the Intent is more important than the exact Wording.

My assumption was not that RAW is more important than RAI, merely that, for many players, their table uses RAW and not RAI, because the value it more, they don't have access to RAI, they need a common ground for rulings (such as in the Adventurer's League), or any number of reasons, and it is therefore more useful. Basically, if the application of RAI could influence a DM's ruling, I told players to ask their DM. That way, they know ahead of time whether their DM uses the RAI or RAW ruling, and can make informed decisions accordingly.

In regards to separating the RAW thread into RAW and RAI threads, I believe that doing so would defeat the purpose of the Q&A thread, which is to have one central repository of questions. I merely suggest allowing the RAI (and therefore coming up with a definition of RAI, the intent of this thread) to be mentioned and supported, as long as it is made clear to be RAI and not RAW.

[calebrus]

And my point was that you literally claim that the RAW should be used in every situation that it appears clear, even in those situations where it clearly does not adhere to what was intended. And in those cases, when the clear RAW and the clear RAI are not aligned, you state that people should use the RAW.

I'll say that again. When the RAI is clear, and it does not line up with the RAW, you state, and I quote, "Ignore the RAI".

Ignore the clear intention?
That just makes me want to ignore your entire chart.

[jkat718]

And my point was that you literally claim that the RAW should be used in every situation that it appears clear, even in those situations where it clearly does not adhere to what was intended. And in those cases, when the clear RAW and the clear RAI are not aligned, you state that people should use the RAW.

I'll say that again. When the RAI is clear, and it does not line up with the RAW, you state, and I quote, "Ignore the RAI".

Ignore the clear intention?
That just makes me want to ignore your entire chart.

I'm saying that RAW takes precedence in the Rules Q&A (by RAW) thread, and you have an issue with that? I'm not sure how that makes sense. :smallconfused:

[calebrus]

I'm saying that RAW takes precedence in the Rules Q&A (by RAW) thread, and you have an issue with that? I'm not sure how that makes sense. :smallconfused:

Because those cases are the ones where the RAI should absolutely without a doubt be mentioned in comparison to the disassociated RAW, and yet you tell people to ignore it completely.
When the RAW and the RAI are at odds and the RAI is clear and/or has been stated by the designers, the RAI needs to be mentioned.

This:
The RAW says <this>, but the designers have stated {here} that the RAI is in fact <this>.
Not this:
The RAW says <this>. completely ignores the fact that the RAI is confirmed to be something completely different

[jkat718]

Because those cases are the ones where the RAI should absolutely without a doubt be mentioned in comparison to the disassociated RAW, and yet you tell people to ignore it completely.
When the RAW and the RAI are at odds and the RAI is clear and/or has been stated by the designers, the RAI needs to be mentioned.

This:
The RAW says <this>, but the designers have stated {here} that the RAI is in fact <this>.
Not this:
The RAW says <this>. completely ignores the fact that the RAI is confirmed to be something completely different

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I didn't intend "ignore the RAI" to mean "don't mention it when giving advice." I meant "when giving advice, mentioned the RAI, but assume the use of RAW due to the nature of the thread." Sorry for that.

[Kryx]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear. I didn't intend "ignore the RAI" to mean "don't mention it when giving advice." I meant "when giving advice, mentioned the RAI, but assume the use of RAW due to the nature of the thread." Sorry for that.

This is quite an archaic view of RAW vs RAI. Due to the nature of 5e's loose wording RAI is more important than RAW imo. The FAQ thread should prioritize RAI if there is a quote from Crawford.

[Giant2005]

I prefer to take Crawford's rulings as canon, even if they contradict what is written in the books.
However I think using such rulings is very detrimental to the game. The fact is that most players only have their books to go by and will never even see a single tweet from Crawford - adding that extra layer of rules beyond what the average player will be privy to does a whole lot more harm than good as it adds more deviations between the games at each table.

[jkat718]

This is quite an archaic view of RAW vs RAI. Due to the nature of 5e's loose wording RAI is more important than RAW imo. The FAQ thread should prioritize RAI if there is a quote from Crawford.

But then it wouldn't be the rules by RAW. I'm all in favor of using RAI; my copy of the books have notes with every single post made to The Sage Advice, including Mike Mearls' posts and even Chris Perkins'. I just don't think it has any place in the RAW thread except where the RAW is unclear.

Look, I understand where you're coming from. With 5e's fluid approach to the rules, RAI does become necessary. I believe Crawford should trump RAW, but only in certain cases. The only thing we disagree about is if, in the case of contradiction, the RAW or RAI should be used. The only case under which I would say "ignore RAI" is if the RAW is clear, and Crawford contradicts it. That's not to say WotC can't change the RAW, through Errata, but we've never had a situation where Crawford got something wrong. He's only ever said that the RAW is wrong, which is a whole different ballgame. From what I'm hearing, you think the RAI takes precedence in all situations, including if Crawford were to say something that went against the books.

[calebrus]

From what I'm hearing, you think the RAI takes precedence in all situations, including if Crawford were to say something that went against the books.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but that is absolutely 100% how I feel about it, yes.
I understand that the RAW thread can't be approached as such, but those are indeed my feelings on the matter (and always have been, even in earlier editions).

This is one of the main reasons that I love 5e so much, because in this edition the RAI is more important than the RAW. It was designed that way. And I have always felt this way, so I'm ecstatic that the game designers finally admitted it as well.

To clarify:
Every single rule was written for a purpose. Each rule serves a function.
When you read the rules without those purposes in mind, you lose something. The Intention of the rule is absolutely more important than the Wording of the rule, in every case, without exception.
So yes, I feel that the RAI takes precedence over the RAW each and every single time. Period.

Think about it.
<this-1> is what I said.
<this-2> is what I meant to say.
That means that <this-2> is what I *should* have said, which means <this-1> would never have been written in the first place.
If RAW and RAI ever diverge, under any circumstances, then RAI takes precedence.

[OldTrees1]

Why does any of this matter, guys?

-snip-

The entire concept of "RAW" is idiotic. The PHB is not a tome delivered from on high. It's a ruleset the designers themselves consider a living document, a set of game mechanics that are subject to revision. The only people for whom this matters are people who want to argue about elf games online.

I agree. In 3E and 4E RAW was used in online discussion as a way to discuss the same game by excluding the differences inherent in there being different DMs. In 5E RAW is full of so many on/off switches that RAW is no longer useful to homogenize online discussion. Instead we are left with only the side effects of RAW used in online discussion (it is a fallacious model and it causes arguments).

[jkat718]

@calebrus: I agree with 100% of what you said, but for my own game. When it comes to giving advice that needs to span multiple tables and multiple DMs, the RAW is the only thing you can guarantee that everyone has access to. We have the same opinion about RAW vs. RAI, the only difference is that I think the RAW thread needs to gain the ability to quote RAI, as long as they cite it to Crawford only. If anything, I want more RAI on the Rules Q&A, the same as you. The only thing I want to make sure of is that the RAI is properly demarcated as separate from the RAW.

[Kryx]

I understand that the RAW thread can't be approached as such
RAI should surely be possible to discuss in that thread. the title may be RAW, but the answers people seek aren't only what is written, but what is intended.

I think RAI in that thread and every other thread is entirely valid. Those that only use the books can continue to only use the books, but those of us with internet can and should use the resources provided.


I think the RAW thread needs to gain the ability to quote RAI, as long as they cite it to Crawford only.
This already happens on that thread. So this debate is a little unneeded I guess.

As far as Crawford vs other designers (Mearls, Perkins): If the RAW is unclear and it has not been addressed by Crawford I don't think it's bad to say "this is how Mearls says he runs it". However that isn't an authoritative ruling.

[jkat718]

So, almost RAI versus conventional ruling? That would be helpful, but there have been complaints that the Save Advice and the various Twitter feeds shouldn't be used in the RAW thread, in order to avoid confusion.

[toapat]

Why would they even specifically let you put your holy symbol on your shield if it still required a free hand?

because of a variety of different reasons. shields bore heraldry of the bearer's master in battle, or because of the saying that "faith is my shield" or simply because dnd has often allowed such before because of the need for a divine focus to be presented to function. However claiming the holy symbol lets you bypass the fact that its a 3/4 sheild on your forearm and hand ignores the fact that an object is not necessarily a single item. A car is probably the most obvious example of something people treat typically as a single thing, even if it actually is 5,000 moving parts keeping tight formation

[Talderas]

For this, Errata would be considered RAI, except where the RAW is dissimilar and the Errata is clear. Then, it's still considered RAI, but super-encouraged.

I feel you may be confuse on just what errata does. Errata is changes to a book that would be corrected in a later printing. It lists the error and it then lists what it should be. In printing it is essentially the complete replacement of text with another set of text. Errata is RAW.

As a useful example, I could take the original 4th Edition Shadowrun book and layer on the errata for it. If you compare that outcome with the anniversary edition book that they later released you will find that the rules were near 100% identical instead of the 97-98% identical ignoring the errata.

If you want to consider errata RAI then you're basically ignoring the history of how errata documents have been utilized.

[Naanomi]

In some ways RAI has always been a troubling designation to me. Whose Intention is important, and of a rule works as written does the intention of it being different matter?

Really the discussion should be, especially with 5e's focus on DM rule flexibility, RAF (rules as functional) or RAWB (rules as work best): identifying problematic areas in the rules (ambiguity, degenerate combos, gross lack of balance, etc) and discuss the merits and drawbacks of each interpretation or rewriting of the rules.

Adventure League and similar organizations should do their own housekeeping on 'house rules and interpretations'

[jkat718]

Yet I've seen tables that ignore the Errata, just by virtue of the fact that they didn't have access to it and didn't want to go through the work of making their books for all the changes.

[T.G. Oskar]

Just thinking about leaving this link for you guys to consider. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings)

So yeah, the first Sage Advice official column is online, and...well, it's more of a presentation of the column than anything else. It'll be done by Crawford. It pretty much codifies RAW ("Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we published.") and RAI ("In a perfect world, RAW and RAI align perfectly, but sometimes the words on the page don’t succeed at communicating the designers’ intent. Or perhaps the words succeed with one group of players but fail with another.") and what he'll do with it ("When I write about the RAI interpretation of a rule, I’ll be pulling back the curtain and letting you know what the D&D team meant when we wrote a certain rule."), and that there'll be errata, but only to clarify things; anything that would amount to a rules change will go into playtest first.

That's a first, but it's tantamount to doing what PF does before Paizo releases Pathfinder Unchained. Or maybe do it in tandem, as the playtest for PF Unchained hasn't been released, and that's the first major set of rules changes; arguably, D&D in this edition will seek to do something that PF does right (open playtest before releasing content) but also going with MMO concepts ("do we need to balance Advantage? Hmm...give it a month and a half of playtest and then a survey to see how things go.") Sounds interesting, at the very least.

[Talderas]

Yet I've seen tables that ignore the Errata, just by virtue of the fact that they didn't have access to it and didn't want to go through the work of making their books for all the changes.

I don't know what to tell you besides not including errata being a houserule since the original document + errata is what would be sent off for printing.

[pwykersotz]

I don't know what to tell you besides not including errata being a houserule since the original document + errata is what would be sent off for printing.

This assumes you update your book when an errata reprint comes out. Most people don't unless a major version change is happening too, and sometimes not even then.

[jkat718]

It would seem that I was wrong about the use of errata, my mistake. That issue aside, though, I think that a good solution would be to change the rules of the RAW thread to allow Crawford's posts and, perhaps, Twitter rulings, be used as a basis for information, as long as you cite it (which, admittedly, trends to happen anyway). Does that sound satisfying to people?

[CrusaderJoe]

This assumes you update your book when an errata reprint comes out. Most people don't unless a major version change is happening too, and sometimes not even then.

Not really.

If I went to a 3.5 game and wanted to use 3.0 material (that has already been updated,say the monk shuriken rules) then I would need a house rule.

3.5 really isn't that much of a change to 3.0. Hell there was a rule that if it wasn't updated then its good to go with 3.0 material.

[pwykersotz]

Not really.

If I went to a 3.5 game and wanted to use 3.0 material (that has already been updated,say the monk shuriken rules) then I would need a house rule.

3.5 really isn't that much of a change to 3.0. Hell there was a rule that if it wasn't updated then its good to go with 3.0 material.

I'm not sure what point you are disagreeing with. Your second point agrees with me as far as I can tell.

[Talderas]

This assumes you update your book when an errata reprint comes out. Most people don't unless a major version change is happening too, and sometimes not even then.

That doesn't change anything. If you're not using the errata then you're not using the up-to-date ruleset which means that using the old version of altered rules is a houserule. Errata is just rarely sent off to the publisher because the authors do not have enough changes to justify the workload of redoing the font, spacing, and other aspects that would be necessary to sign off and submit a new proof to the printers (read a huge cost for not much benefit). It's only typically done when there's a huge gutting off the rules (3.0->3.5) or there's some special reason that they're changing around the book anyway (Shadowrun 4th edition anniversary edition).

It's no different than the incremental patches for videos games. You could play 1.0 but it's going to lack all the balance and bug fixes of v1.01 and you wouldn't be able to play with anyone using 1.01.

[pwykersotz]

That doesn't change anything. If you're not using the errata then you're not using the up-to-date ruleset which means that using the old version of altered rules is a houserule. Errata is just rarely sent off to the publisher because the authors do not have enough changes to justify the workload of redoing the font, spacing, and other aspects that would be necessary to sign off and submit a new proof to the printers (read a huge cost for not much benefit). It's only typically done when there's a huge gutting off the rules (3.0->3.5) or there's some special reason that they're changing around the book anyway (Shadowrun 4th edition anniversary edition).

It's no different than the incremental patches for videos games. You could play 1.0 but it's going to lack all the balance and bug fixes of v1.01 and you wouldn't be able to play with anyone using 1.01.

You're still using an official product, not a houserule. Houserules in your example are the equivalent of downloading mods. Playing an out of date copy is still official.

[Talderas]

You're still using an official product, not a houserule. Houserules in your example are the equivalent of downloading mods. Playing an out of date copy is still official.

Your statement is actually accurate only under a very narrow set of circumstances. Let's say WotC publishes errata for the PHB tomorrow. The official ruleset is PHB/DMG/MM/Errata while PHB/DMG/MM is the old rules. That much is true. If they publish a new rulebook, let's say Draconomicon, after errata has been published then that new rulebook is assumed to be operating under the errata'd ruleset and not the original ruleset since every book beyond the core three is an optional book dependent on the core three or another book. Thus if you use Draconomicon with PHB/DMG/MM but not including the previously published errata then you are operating under an invalid ruleset.

Further, for the purpose of communication we are to assume that everyone is up-to-date and utilizing the current ruleset unless otherwise specified. Very few tables play by RAW, the only real example I know of from the GITP forums is stuff ran by Tippy. Most games will be free with the rules and will rule and adjudicate as they see best. That may seem weird then to discuss rules in RAW formats but it's necessary in crucial so that we understand what the rule does say and what it does so that you can houserule in an intelligent fashion, which usually means ruling in a narrow fashion so as to not implement a broad ruling that could have adverse consequences later on.

[DanyBallon]

Wizards could look to Paizo for errata publication. Paizo collect all typos, rules clarification that can be easily insert into the product, then when it's time to lunch a new print run of the product, they update it with the latest errata and also release a pdf for those who have an earlier print. So 4th print CRB will have fixes that are not in the first through third print.

[pwykersotz]

Your statement is actually accurate only under a very narrow set of circumstances. Let's say WotC publishes errata for the PHB tomorrow. The official ruleset is PHB/DMG/MM/Errata while PHB/DMG/MM is the old rules. That much is true. If they publish a new rulebook, let's say Draconomicon, after errata has been published then that new rulebook is assumed to be operating under the errata'd ruleset and not the original ruleset since every book beyond the core three is an optional book dependent on the core three or another book. Thus if you use Draconomicon with PHB/DMG/MM but not including the previously published errata then you are operating under an invalid ruleset.

Further, for the purpose of communication we are to assume that everyone is up-to-date and utilizing the current ruleset unless otherwise specified. Very few tables play by RAW, the only real example I know of from the GITP forums is stuff ran by Tippy. Most games will be free with the rules and will rule and adjudicate as they see best. That may seem weird then to discuss rules in RAW formats but it's necessary in crucial so that we understand what the rule does say and what it does so that you can houserule in an intelligent fashion, which usually means ruling in a narrow fashion so as to not implement a broad ruling that could have adverse consequences later on.

For the purposes of communication, yes, we tend to default to the latest material on the subject. But the comment I was replying to originally was based on a denial that tables who ignore errata for whatever reason are playing a legitimate game (free of house rules with respect to the errata), which itself was in response to a claim that errata might be considered RAI for the purpose of distinguishing it from what is in the books. Just because errata is released does not put it in the books without a future printing that is then purchased.

Now my personal opinion is that you are correct. I'd even go a step further and say Crawford's clarification tweets are RAW. They're written, they're rules, they're RAW. But in trying to establish a useful baseline for future communication, I don't think it's quite that cut and dried. Hence my initial objection. I don't think you're wrong (heh, RAWng :smalltongue:), I just think the initial statement I commented on was too sweeping, whitewashing the discussion instead of exploring it. So I posted my disagreement.

I think there's room for RAW with respect to the books, RAW with respect to books+errata, and RAW with respect to books+errata+designer clarification on an officially sanctioned page. Maybe one of these is best designated RAI. I dunno yet.

[NotALurker]

I agree. In 3E and 4E RAW was used in online discussion as a way to discuss the same game by excluding the differences inherent in there being different DMs. In 5E RAW is full of so many on/off switches that RAW is no longer useful to homogenize online discussion. Instead we are left with only the side effects of RAW used in online discussion (it is a fallacious model and it causes arguments).

RAW is the game you are playing, its the only way you know what your character can do. without good RAW you might think your fighter can jump long distances, and punch mountains in half, but your DM might thing he can do nothing more then the average joe can do.

RAW IS the the game, everything else is what you personaly think, something only you know. I know I do not want to have to start every campaign with making the game, and clairifying what everyone can do. That is the reason we pay money to Wotc, so I do not have to make the game up as I go.



RAI should surely be possible to discuss in that thread. the title may be RAW, but the answers people seek aren't only what is written, but what is intended.

I think RAI in that thread and every other thread is entirely valid. Those that only use the books can continue to only use the books, but those of us with internet can and should use the resources provided.


This already happens on that thread. So this debate is a little unneeded I guess.

As far as Crawford vs other designers (Mearls, Perkins): If the RAW is unclear and it has not been addressed by Crawford I don't think it's bad to say "this is how Mearls says he runs it". However that isn't an authoritative ruling.

what reason do you have for cherry picking one designer?

also given the huge math problems in 5e I would not trust any of their off the cuff rules.

[pwykersotz]

RAW is the game you are playing, its the only way you know what your character can do. without good RAW you might think your fighter can jump long distances, and punch mountains in half, but your DM might think he can do nothing more than the average joe can do.

RAW IS the the game, everything else is what you personaly think, something only you know. I know I do not want to have to start every campaign with making the game, and clairifying what everyone can do. That is the reason we pay money to Wotc, so I do not have to make the game up as I go.

I don't know what you think the game of D&D is, but for most people it is not this. RAW is definitely not the whole game. It is a tool, not a straight-jacket.


what reason do you have for cherry picking one designer?

also given the huge math problems in 5e I would not trust any of their off the cuff rules.

5e doesn't have huge math problems. At most it has difficulty with some types of worlds that it wasn't designed to support without some modification. :smallconfused:

[jkat718]

what reason do you have for cherry picking one designer?

Crawford is Wizards' resident rule guru, aka The Sage. Mearls has stated that his rulings are just that, his rulings, and not necessarily by-the-book. Read the OP for more information.

[NotALurker]

I don't know what you think the game of D&D is, but for most people it is not this. RAW is definitely not the whole game. It is a tool, not a straight-jacket.



5e doesn't have huge math problems. At most it has difficulty with some types of worlds that it wasn't designed to support without some modification. :smallconfused:

you are not playing the same game if you are not playing by RAW, you might as well make the rules up as you go. hardly any reason to pay Wotc for the game.

have you looked at the save math? how about the general balance of fighter v wizard?

[pwykersotz]

you are not playing the same game if you are not playing by RAW, you might as well make the rules up as you go. hardly any reason to pay Wotc for the game.

have you looked at the save math? how about the general balance of fighter v wizard?

Your claim is ridiculous. Your starting statement of not playing the same game is flawed, but even moreso your conclusions that you might as well make up the rules as you go and that there's no reason to pay for the game bear no connection to the premise. You may as well state that because someone doesn't like spinach that they may as well ignore all vegetables and there's hardly a reason to pay for a supreme pizza.

Yes I have looked at the math. I have also read the opinion of everyone else on this board who has looked at the math. I stand by my statement.

[Kryx]

also given the huge math problems in 5e I would not trust any of their off the cuff rules.
There are not huge math problems that I am aware of.

As the person above said Crawford is the rules man. The rulings are not off the cuff from Crawford.



you are not playing the same game if you are not playing by RAW, you might as well make the rules up as you go. hardly any reason to pay Wotc for the game.
Ya.. this is silly. I'm a strict RAW/RAI guy, but people are able to adjust the game as it pleases them. RAI is more important than RAW as stated in seveal of these recent threads/

[NotALurker]

Your claim is ridiculous. Your starting statement of not playing the same game is flawed, but even moreso your conclusions that you might as well make up the rules as you go and that there's no reason to pay for the game bear no connection to the premise. You may as well state that because someone doesn't like spinach that they may as well ignore all vegetables and there's hardly a reason to pay for a supreme pizza.

Yes I have looked at the math. I have also read the opinion of everyone else on this board who has looked at the math. I stand by my statement.

the point of RAW is so when I say "I teleport 20 foot that way" I know that I do not provoke for doing so, and it only takes a move action. my DM also knows this as does everyone else at the table. without a good RAW I could think the above, my DM Could think I provoke when I teleport and it takes a standard action, another player could think it takes my entire turn, a second player could think that I can not teleport because I am adjacent to a target that can interrupt me.

so your saying that fighters and wizards are balanced across all levels? each is as useful as the other? that at high levels a wizard can use one spell, then take a nap and out damage a fighter who attacks every round and this is ok? that fighters having no out of combat utility is ok while wizards must have some or they are not really wizards?

that being able to use a save or die on a target and they only having like a 10% chance to succeed is not bad?


There are not huge math problems that I am aware of.

As the person above said Crawford is the rules man. The rulings are not off the cuff from Crawford.



Ya.. this is silly. I'm a strict RAW/RAI guy, but people are able to adjust the game as it pleases them. RAI is more important than RAW as stated in several of these recent threads/

I assume you know him personalty and know they are not off the cuff? if you do not you are just guessing, and my guess is as good as yours.

yes its a good thing I can see into the Dev's mind and see objectively what RAI is, as can every other player at my table.

[pwykersotz]

the point of RAW is so when I say "I teleport 20 foot that way" I know that I do not provoke for doing so, and it only takes a move action. my DM also knows this as does everyone else at the table. without a good RAW I could think the above, my DM Could think I provoke when I teleport and it takes a standard action, another player could think it takes my entire turn, a second player could think that I can not teleport because I am adjacent to a target that can interrupt me.

so your saying that fighters and wizards are balanced across all levels? each is as useful as the other? that at high levels a wizard can use one spell, then take a nap and out damage a fighter who attacks every round and this is ok? that fighters having no out of combat utility is ok while wizards must have some or they are not really wizards?

that being able to use a save or die on a target and they only having like a 10% chance to succeed is not bad?

I assume you know him personalty and know they are not off the cuff? if you do not you are just guessing, and my guess is as good as yours.

yes its a good thing I can see into the Dev's mind and see objectively what RAI is, as can every other player at my table.


I disagree firmly. That is the point of the rules. As intended or written or fun or anything else, you are only citing simple rules. Rules as written include things like Destructive Smite not existing because only Destructive Wave exists. It's written in the books. Better not use intent with that one, they haven't published official errata.

The rest of your arguments are gross mischaracterizations and I won't address them.

[SiuiS]

It's not that RAW is more important than RAI it's that if you're answering questions by RAW then RAW answers would naturally supersede RAI answers.

That sounds very much like "it's not more important, it just has greater importance". <_<



If a question isn't answerable by RAW it generally isn't a simple question.

The reverse is not true though. Not all questions answerable by raw are simple. Not are all simple questions answerable by raw.


I agree. In 3E and 4E RAW was used in online discussion as a way to discuss the same game by excluding the differences inherent in there being different DMs. In 5E RAW is full of so many on/off switches that RAW is no longer useful to homogenize online discussion. Instead we are left with only the side effects of RAW used in online discussion (it is a fallacious model and it causes arguments).

I completely agree. It's refreshing to see this from other folks sometimes.


@calebrus: I agree with 100% of what you said, but for my own game. When it comes to giving advice that needs to span multiple tables and multiple DMs, the RAW is the only thing you can guarantee that everyone has access to. We have the same opinion about RAW vs. RAI, the only difference is that I think the RAW thread needs to gain the ability to quote RAI, as long as they cite it to Crawford only. If anything, I want more RAI on the Rules Q&A, the same as you. The only thing I want to make sure of is that the RAI is properly demarcated as separate from the RAW.

The problem is you want to be able to make a pronouncement and that's it. Boom! Done.

5e requires that rules discussions be a conversation. You get information, give it, and share perspectives in a friendly manner, rather than declare rules and leave it be. That's infinitely preferable, I feel.

[OldTrees1]

RAW is the game you are playing, its the only way you know what your character can do. without good RAW you might think your fighter can jump long distances, and punch mountains in half, but your DM might thing he can do nothing more then the average joe can do.

RAW IS the the game, everything else is what you personaly think, something only you know. I know I do not want to have to start every campaign with making the game, and clairifying what everyone can do. That is the reason we pay money to Wotc, so I do not have to make the game up as I go.

No. The rules as they pertain to my table is the game my group and I are playing. RAW was a good starting point for each table to work from but it is the height of hubris to argue using a fallacious model of what is. Arguing RAW is just that, arguing using a fallacious model since table to table differences are going to be much larger in 5E than in 3E and those differences were still relevant in 3E. Instead our time would be much better served discussing Rules with RAW as a starting point but not an enforced pattern to mold all discussion.

In short RULES >> RAW and thus arguing what is RAW is largely a trap to turn discussions into arguments.

[jkat718]

I agree. In 3E and 4E RAW was used in online discussion as a way to discuss the same game by excluding the differences inherent in there being different DMs. In 5E RAW is full of so many on/off switches that RAW is no longer useful to homogenize online discussion. Instead we are left with only the side effects of RAW used in online discussion (it is a fallacious model and it causes arguments).

I completely agree. It's refreshing to see this from other folks sometimes.
I think Old Trees has it right here, actually. I simply draw a different conclusion. For 5e, the reason we need to allow Crawford's Sage rulings to be included as RAW is because of the multitude of on/off switches. The sheer amount of variability between DMs means that there is a far less cohesive view of many rules. The RAW is the only system that is common to all DMs. If we allow the RAC (Rules as Crawford) to become the "official" view on these rules, then that core set of universalities expands, and gives the community a broader basis off of which we can work.



The problem is you want to be able to make a pronouncement and that's it. Boom! Done.

5e requires that rules discussions be a conversation. You get information, give it, and share perspectives in a friendly manner, rather than declare rules and leave it be. That's infinitely preferable, I feel.
Yes, for the vast majority of rules, discussion is required. That is the point of these forums, isn't it? As far as the Rules Q&A (by RAW) thread is concerned, we only want to find those debates that can be quickly and easily quelled, without discussion or different interpretations, by a direct quote from the books and then quell them. If that quote cannot be found, then it is the purview of the questioner to create a new thread in which to debate the quote's real meaning. If, even there, an agreement cannot be met (which is quite likely), then the rule becomes just another one of Old Trees' "on/off switches" that vary from table to table (ergo, one of the things that a DM must give their ruling on before beginning a campaign, in order to ensure that their players have the right expectations going forward).

[Easy_Lee]

I think Old Trees has it right here, actually. I simply draw a different conclusion. For 5e, the reason we need to allow Crawford's Sage rulings to be included as RAW is because of the multitude of on/off switches. The sheer amount of variability between DMs means that there is a far less cohesive view of many rules. The RAW is the only system that is common to all DMs. If we allow the RAC (Rules as Crawford) to become the "official" view on these rules, then that core set of universalities expands, and gives the community a broader basis off of which we can work.

I definitely agree that Crawford's rules would be useful got new DMs and leagues in the very least. I only hope that has rulings remain reasonable and well-argued, as they are now. It's very convenient to have a ruling to point to and say "look, here's a valid interpretation. Maybe it's not the only one, maybe it's not best for every game, but it works fine if you need one."

[OldTrees1]

I think Old Trees has it right here, actually. I simply draw a different conclusion. For 5e, the reason we need to allow Crawford's Sage rulings to be included as RAW is because of the multitude of on/off switches. The sheer amount of variability between DMs means that there is a far less cohesive view of many rules. The RAW is the only system that is common to all DMs. If we allow the RAC (Rules as Crawford) to become the "official" view on these rules, then that core set of universalities expands, and gives the community a broader basis off of which we can work.

Using a specific real world DM(Crawford) as the lens through which to interpret/amend the rules would give you a model that you could objectively discuss with others. That much I agree with.

However I do not think it is wise to use a "universal" model as a basis for discussion given the expected amount of deviation from that model we should expect in actual cases. This is true regardless of whether RAW, Rules as Crawford, or Rules as jkat are used as the single model basis for discussion.

Instead I propose we use "Rules as they should be"/Rules as Correct. Since these rules result after judgement by individuals, they will differ from person to person just like optimization level differs. For most people these will be synonymous with their version of Rules as Fun. By framing discussion by basing it on people representing their own views, we will see more of the whole picture and get to see views improve over time from exposure even if that improvement does not converge.

If discussions were framed with such a basis, then there is still reason to bring in Crawford's opinion but it would not be presumed correct. Instead his opinions will fly or sink based on their own merit.

[NotALurker]

I disagree firmly. That is the point of the rules. As intended or written or fun or anything else, you are only citing simple rules. Rules as written include things like Destructive Smite not existing because only Destructive Wave exists. It's written in the books. Better not use intent with that one, they haven't published official errata.

The rest of your arguments are gross mischaracterizations and I won't address them.

rules as written are the only rules there are, the only one who know RAI is the person who wrote the rule, everyone else is just guessing. WAF is the same.


No. The rules as they pertain to my table is the game my group and I are playing. RAW was a good starting point for each table to work from but it is the height of hubris to argue using a fallacious model of what is. Arguing RAW is just that, arguing using a fallacious model since table to table differences are going to be much larger in 5E than in 3E and those differences were still relevant in 3E. Instead our time would be much better served discussing Rules with RAW as a starting point but not an enforced pattern to mold all discussion.

In short RULES >> RAW and thus arguing what is RAW is largely a trap to turn discussions into arguments.

when discussing 5e the assumption is you are playing 5e, not a game made out of a few 5e rules and alot of your own musings on what 5e should be.

you can add your musing if you want but past a certain point it ceases to be 5e and stops becoming relevant to this board.

[DanyBallon]

I don't see why some peoples seems to consider RAI as if it was plague. Would the designer had enough time, space, proofreading, playtesting, etc. the rules as written would be exactly as they were intended. So when there's confusion and one of the designer gives us input on what was the intent behind the rule as written, it's as good as if it was written the right way in the first place.
That aside if you decide to ignore or modify that answer (as well as if you modify a rule written in the core books) to something that is more fit for your table, then it's perfectly fine, because the goal of the game is to have fun, not bickering over who's right and who's not.

[OldTrees1]

when discussing 5e the assumption is you are playing 5e, not a game made out of a few 5e rules and alot of your own musings on what 5e should be.

you can add your musing if you want but past a certain point it ceases to be 5e and stops becoming relevant to this board.

Take 5 tables that stick to RAW with various on/off switches and 5 that do likewise but with a 5% change in the rules(new content/rule tweaks). All of these tables are playing 5E, none of them are identical, and all of them are more relevant than a theoretical single interpretation/setting of RAW(since relevant to 1 table > relevant to 0 tables).

Consider threads that will pop up. People will be asking questions that are applicable to their table. If we answer with an incomplete model (as any DMless single interpretation/setting of RAW would be) then we would be less helpful than if we answer with that DM in mind. Likewise when a DM asks a question, we would be more helpful to give complete answers(ones that include the existence of a DM) than a single inflexible interpretation/setting of RAW.

So you can try to find a single interpretation/setting of RAW, but past a certain point it becomes useless at best and damaging at worst to internet discussion.


@DanyBallon
Just in case that was aimed at me,

RAI is not a plague. It is a useful opinion that should be judged based on its merit and should be given due benefit of the doubt due to the expertise that was behind it. Given that expertise I would assume RAI is a better version of RAW (excepting rare exceptions due to creator blindness)

However we should recognize that 5E was designed with much table to table variation in mind. Therefore, if we want to give useful advice we will need many models instead of a single model.

[pwykersotz]

rules as written are the only rules there are, the only one who know RAI is the person who wrote the rule, everyone else is just guessing. WAF is the same.

So to paraphrase you...


Nuh uh.

All right, I guess I'm done here. :smallsmile:

[jkat718]

I'm not arguing that RAW is necessarily useful for debating different interpretations of a rule. I only say that RAW is useful for giving the sorry if "universal ruling" that many people ask for. Of that ruling is just that "the RAW is unclear," "ask your DM," or "decide for your own games," I'm fine with that. I just want to decide if RAC has any place overriding those responses.

[DanyBallon]

@DanyBallon
Just in case that was aimed at me,

RAI is not a plague. It is a useful opinion that should be judged based on its merit and should be given due benefit of the doubt due to the expertise that was behind it. Given that expertise I would assume RAI is a better version of RAW (excepting rare exceptions due to creator blindness)

However we should recognize that 5E was designed with much table to table variation in mind. Therefore, if we want to give useful advice we will need many models instead of a single model.

My comment was not pointing at anyone, I was just wondering why there was so many people disregarding Crawford's input because it's not written as is in the book. The guy is one of the designer of said rules and the one in charge with doing the errata. So if he let us know what was the intent when they wrote the rule, then the better for the community. And as I said, from there what you do at your table it's up to you, as long as everyone have fun, the main objective of the game is reached :)

[Easy_Lee]

I'm not arguing that RAW is necessarily useful for debating different interpretations of a rule. I only say that RAW is useful for giving the sorry if "universal ruling" that many people ask for. Of that ruling is just that "the RAW is unclear," "ask your DM," or "decide for your own games," I'm fine with that. I just want to decide if RAC has any place overriding those responses.

What your DM says > RAW > what you think ~ RAC, I think.

If nothing else, I suspect that RAC will make for a good DM tool when unsure on a ruling and wanting to go with the intended usage. As I've said, I think this is a fantastic tool for new DMs to help them avoid making rulings that they'll regret later.

[NotALurker]

So to paraphrase you...



All right, I guess I'm done here. :smallsmile:

so you are telepathic then?

[OldTrees1]

My comment was not pointing at anyone, I was just wondering why there was so many people disregarding Crawford's input because it's not written as is in the book. The guy is one of the designer of said rules and the one in charge with doing the errata. So if he let us know what was the intent when they wrote the rule, then the better for the community. And as I said, from there what you do at your table it's up to you, as long as everyone have fun, the main objective of the game is reached :)
Ah, I was having trouble interpreting what you meant so I responded in case it was related to something I said. Turns out it wasn't.

Honestly I have never seen a reason to give preferential treatment to RAW over RAI even back in 3E. So you have my full agreement that Crawford's input is useful.

[Xetheral]

I feel like I'll regret getting into the semantic weeds on this, but what does "RAW" even mean? What are we even supposed to think about "not legally binding"? Legally where? At the International D&D Olympics?

Is a rule better if it's "RAW"? If Crawford provides a superior rule that improves your game or fixes a problem you see in it, but he does it on Twitter, do you have to soldier on with the crap rule because it's not RAW? Why? In what circumstances?

...

Because worrying about what's RAW and what's RAI is a big thicket no one needs to drag themselves through, jkat.


In this edition, by design, the Intent is more important than the exact Wording.


The concept of RAW and priority canonicity is flawed, outdated, and does not apply to 5e.




This is one of the main reasons that I love 5e so much, because in this edition the RAI is more important than the RAW. It was designed that way. And I have always felt this way, so I'm ecstatic that the game designers finally admitted it as well.

To clarify:
Every single rule was written for a purpose. Each rule serves a function.
When you read the rules without those purposes in mind, you lose something. The Intention of the rule is absolutely more important than the Wording of the rule, in every case, without exception.
So yes, I feel that the RAI takes precedence over the RAW each and every single time. Period.

Think about it.
<this-1> is what I said.
<this-2> is what I meant to say.
That means that <this-2> is what I *should* have said, which means <this-1> would never have been written in the first place.
If RAW and RAI ever diverge, under any circumstances, then RAI takes precedence.

The concepts of RAW and RAI produce such endless debate because they represent conceptually different ways of interpreting the meaning of written words. The tension between them is fundamental and unresolvable. That does not mean that discussion regarding the utility of each is useless. Quite the contrary, it means that the discussion is extremely important.

Consider the close analogue of interpreting real-world laws. The role that legislative intent should play in statutory interpretation is highly controversial, and consensus is unlikely to ever be reached. But as each side (bitterly) tries to convince the other of its point of view, the participants and any observers gain a better understanding of the language under consideration and its possible interpretations. This is a good thing: if a given wording is ambiguous, then to better understand the meaning of those words one has to understand that ambiguity.

The writers of rules (of any type) can offer their opinion on what interpretive methods should be used to resolve ambiguity, but unless a hierarchical relationship exists placing the writer in authority over the reader, that opinion is not binding. Accordingly, the designers of 5th Edition cannot control by fiat whether RAW or RAI is a better method for interpreting or evaluating their work. Their opinion on the topic can be valuable when considering how the writing style should be interpreted to glean the RAI from the RAW, but they cannot resolve such basic epistemological controversies by declaration.

As such, I consider it unhelpful to emphatically claim that in 5th Edition RAW (or RAI) is meaningless, or worthless, or less valuable that it is in any other edition. Words were written and published. Words about those words were written and published. Inferences can be made about the intent behind those words both from the words themselves and from still other words. It is by discussing and debating all those words, and by discussing and debating all the different ways we can interpret all those words, that collectively we improve our understanding of meaning.

...And then, because it’s just a game, we can all go do whatever we want at our own tables anyway.

[jkat718]

words

This is…perfect. It's exactly what I've been trying to get at, but never knew how to phrase. Thank you, Xeth.

[pwykersotz]

As such, I consider it unhelpful to emphatically claim that in 5th Edition RAW (or RAI) is meaningless, or worthless, or less valuable that it is in any other edition.

As long as the discussion happens, at any rate. A lot of posters use RAW to dismiss and deride ideas that could flourish if honestly discussed. This isn't a legal group, a lot of Pixies in the Playground come in and get shouted down. Admittedly it's more of an issue with attitude as opposed to RAW itself, but from my perspective it seems to breed that mindset.

[Talderas]

As long as the discussion happens, at any rate. A lot of posters use RAW to dismiss and deride ideas that could flourish if honestly discussed. This isn't a legal group, a lot of Pixies in the Playground come in and get shouted down. Admittedly it's more of an issue with attitude as opposed to RAW itself, but from my perspective it seems to breed that mindset.

And they would be using RAW in the wrong manner as it should be readily inferred that the context is indicating that the discussion is not a direct RAW matter. If I were to be talking about the campaign setting I'm currently crafting where every PC and NPC knows a new cantrip I designed and I use a system of inventory that is intending to drastically reduce inventory bookkeeping it should be rather obvious that I am operating in a setting that is only using RAW as a guidance. If I were to, for example, ask a question on how to handle the sorcerer class because dragons don't exist in my world and wild magic doesn't match up well to how magic functions in the setting, I would not expect any sane individual to respond with any sort of RAW because RAW is irrelevant in the context.

All RAW deals with and should be used for is to function as a tool for determine was is or is not within the rules. Thus any topic where the question is about how something works, then RAW is the appropriate response to it and RAI or any other extension of a type of rule is irrelevant. You could suggest alternative interpretations (RAI) but they are just that, alternative and it should be obvious that is what you are doing.

[pwykersotz]

And they would be using RAW in the wrong manner as it should be readily inferred that the context is indicating that the discussion is not a direct RAW matter. If I were to be talking about the campaign setting I'm currently crafting where every PC and NPC knows a new cantrip I designed and I use a system of inventory that is intending to drastically reduce inventory bookkeeping it should be rather obvious that I am operating in a setting that is only using RAW as a guidance. If I were to, for example, ask a question on how to handle the sorcerer class because dragons don't exist in my world and wild magic doesn't match up well to how magic functions in the setting, I would not expect any sane individual to respond with any sort of RAW because RAW is irrelevant in the context.

All RAW deals with and should be used for is to function as a tool for determine was is or is not within the rules. Thus any topic where the question is about how something works, then RAW is the appropriate response to it and RAI or any other extension of a type of rule is irrelevant. You could suggest alternative interpretations (RAI) but they are just that, alternative and it should be obvious that is what you are doing.

I agree with you until your last two sentences. Otherwise theoretical optimization would be standard. RAW is always useful as it tells you what the book says. Both further RAW and RAI are always useful as they provides context. RAW the Wish-Simulacrum chain works. But the balance in the monster manual, abilities of other players, and wording of both Simulacrum and Wish suggest they were not intended for this abuse. With just RAW you get an answer that borders on useless for most campaigns. With everything together you get perspective that allows you to interpret the RAW usefully, no matter what type of campaign you run.

[Vogonjeltz]

Here is what I am asking: does Jeremy Crawford's advice in his capacity as the Sage qualify as RAW?

Definitionally, no.

However that's not the point, they are explanations of what the rules are supposed to mean in situations where question seekers have become confused (which isn't to say the RAW is necessarily confusing). So, for purposes of comprehension, take those sources as being clarification on anything.

Rules as Written isn't a suicide pact. If these books were living documents online (instead of the static physical objects they necessarily are) that could be modified to provide greater clarity over time, then consider the other sources (crawford, mearls, etc...) to be that clarification.