Is it time for a new raw thread?

[CyberThread]

Just curious folks, about when do we hit the threshhold, and I need to make a new one?

[jkat718]

The post you quoted in the OP says to make a new one at 50 pages, and we're at 33 right now, but we've had a wrong 392 questions in those pages. Maybe cap it at four or five hundred questions?

[Kryx]

Any new thread should handle the RAW/RAI/Tweets stuff appropriately. Some don't consider Crawford's tweets RAW/RAI. imo they are far more important than RAW.

The thread shouldn't be limited to RAW, but also allow RAI (supported by Crawford tweets).

[calebrus]

Any new thread should handle the RAW/RAI/Tweets stuff appropriately. Some don't consider Crawford's tweets RAW/RAI. imo they are far more important than RAW.

The thread shouldn't be limited to RAW, but also allow RAI (supported by Crawford tweets).

All tweets from the design team should be supported. Crawford's tweets just hold more weight where the RAW is concerned. He makes the official rulings on what is allowed, and he does so always favoring strict RAW. He approaches every question with that mindset first. Those were his paraphrased words.
RAI can be gleaned from any designer. Official rulings (which are most appropriate in a strict RAW setting) are Crawford's purview.

And I agree that RAI is more important in this edition (I've always felt that way anyway, dating back to 2e).
With that said, I'm not sure merging them is the best idea. I think a separate (and connected) thread for RAI would be a better idea.

[Kryx]

With that said, I'm not sure merging them is the best idea. I think a separate (and connected) thread for RAI would be a better idea.
I don't think so. People ask questions there for how things should be/are commonly handled. Especially in 5e where many things are vague the answers should present RAW and optionally RAI/tweets imo.

A separate thread wouldn't work.

[jkat718]

Perhaps just require all responses to cite either a book/supplement (or Tweet, if applicable). Then, in the OP, quote the various designers on "how RAW" their responses are. Here are the most relevant pieces, IMO:


"any official ruling is made or approved by me." (Jeremy Crawford via Twitter, source (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/529674616147415040))

"To be clear, Twitter is a way to be in touch with you, our fellow players and DMs. The upcoming FAQ is official." (Jeremy Crawford via Twitter, source (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/518804989590777856))

"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" (Mike Mearls via WotC, source (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/end-beginning))

"Mike was telling people how he would run it. I was telling people how it works as printed." (Jeremy Crawford via Twitter, source (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/558355273048276992))

"my "rulings" are my opinions, not canon." (Mike Mearls via Twitter, source (https://twitter.com/mikemearls/status/558362644080365568))


I don't know if any other WotC employees besides Chris Perkins have been fielding questions, but I'm sure they are. I think that requiring a direct quote is a good policy regardless of the RAW/RAI debate, and I also think the thread as a whole needs better guidelines as to the proper response. I, personally, would welcome people's personal rulings on a matter, but perhaps require it to be placed in a spoiler/different font color/something else? I think 5e really benefits from RAI and DM rulings, but RAW has its merits as a common starting point that doesn't (or rather, shouldn't) vary from table to table.

[Chronos]

As an aside, am I the only one annoyed that they chose Twitter as their channel for official rules clarifications? It makes complicated questions, or detailed answers to them, impossible. As a separate but related complaint, it's not really clear to me whether Crawford is clarifying rules, or creating new ones. If the former, I'd really like to know just what rules he's clarifying, and if the latter, that would be good to know, too.

[Kryx]

I'd really like to know just what rules he's clarifying, and if the latter, that would be good to know, too.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/with_replies
or the unofficial searchable version: http://www.sageadvice.eu/

[Chronos]

Yes, I'm obviously aware of that, or I wouldn't be commenting on it. I know that he's answering questions; I don't know just what sort of thing his answers are.

[calebrus]

As an aside, am I the only one annoyed that they chose Twitter as their channel for official rules clarifications? It makes complicated questions, or detailed answers to them, impossible. As a separate but related complaint, it's not really clear to me whether Crawford is clarifying rules, or creating new ones. If the former, I'd really like to know just what rules he's clarifying, and if the latter, that would be good to know, too.
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/with_replies
or the unofficial searchable version: http://www.sageadvice.eu/
Yes, I'm obviously aware of that, or I wouldn't be commenting on it. I know that he's answering questions; I don't know just what sort of thing his answers are.

See, here's the thing abut that.
Those aren't the "Official Answers" as people seem to think. Jeremy Crawford is the Sage, and he will make the official rulings, yes. But he hasn't done so yet. Not once that I'm aware of.
You see, that site (sageadvice) is someone's personal collection of twitter responses.
That site is *not* the Sage Advice that jkat referred to in this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?403027-Is-it-time-for-a-new-raw-thread&p=18941233#post18941233).

Sage Advice is a column on Wizard's site. There has only been one that I know of so far, and it didn't answer any questions specifically.
It is here. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings)

So the assumption that twitter is the channel that they have chosen for their official rules clarifications is an incorrect one, based on the fact that someone's personal collection of tweets are compiled on a site with a name which is similar to the one that *is* official.

From the article:
"In next month’s Sage Advice, I’ll dive into an assortment of rules questions. In the meantime, you can follow me on Twitter (@JeremyECrawford), where I give short answers to some rules questions and gather material for future installments of this column."
In and of itself, even Crawford's twitter responses aren't official. He's the one that makes the official calls, but on twitter he's doing so in an unofficial capacity.
Imagine a Supreme Court Justice having dinner and making a statement that a certain law is unconstitutional. That doesn't mean it is overturned. That means he made an unofficial statement about it.

[Easy_Lee]

Is there a post limit? I think it's fine for the current one to keep going. The only thing I could see being beneficial would be to compile an easy to view list of questions and answers somewhere (which would be quite time consuming).

[jkat718]

@Easy_Lee: The OP for that thread says 50 pages, and we're currently at 33. I do think compiling a list would be helpful, if only to help prevent repeated questions when we eventually do migrate to a new thread. I'd be willing to make a Google Sheet or something similar, where anyone could add the next batch of questions whenever they have the time and inclination to do so. I think that's probably the best method of archiving, and then just keep the database updated as new questions come in and are answered.

[heavyfuel]

We should have two threads. One for RAW, one for Tweets and RAI discussions. The current RAW Thread has become unusable due to the sheer number of "this isn't RAW, but" posts.

[Kryx]

We should have two threads. One for RAW, one for Tweets and RAI discussions. The current RAW Thread has become unusable due to the sheer number of "this isn't RAW, but" posts.
So a player comes to the board and seeks answers - answers for what is intended with tricky wording.

RAI is far more important to that answer than RAW. RAW is abusable and fallible. RAI (supported by tweets) is far more important to determine what the developers meant that wording to be used for.

A pure RAW thread does not fit with how the developers intend 5e to be played.

[heavyfuel]

So a player comes to the board and seeks answers - answers for what is intended with tricky wording.

RAI is far more important to that answer than RAW. RAW is abusable and fallible. RAI (supported by tweets) is far more important to determine what the developers meant that wording to be used for.

A pure RAW thread does not fit with how the developers intend 5e to be played.

Hence the two threads. If I post to the RAW Q&A, that's what I want. The RAW. Maybe I misread something, or am being forgetful, or maybe there's a combination of rules that I didn't take into account. But if I cared about individual houserules, I'd either start a new thread or post to the other Q&A thread.

[jkat718]

@heavyfuel: The problem with that model, besides the obvious issues of having two places to get answers for the same question, is that some people would like to hear both RAW and RAI (for example, a DM who wants to know the reasoning behind an ambiguous rule in order to give their own interpretation to their players). I think the best solution would be to give both the RAW and RAI for every question. It's simple, easy to do, and gives as much information as possible. For example, if I asked a question and got the response that the rule is ambiguous then, in the current RAW thread, I could not ask for an explanation of the two sides of the debate. While a full synopsis of the argument doesn't really have much place for the rules Q&A thread, I do think that, for rules such as the controversial interaction of Crossbow Expert and hand crossbows, links to or quotes from Mearls and Crawford would be appropriate.

[Easy_Lee]

The trouble with having RAW and RAI in one thread is that it would be difficult to distinguish between the two and even more difficult to find what one is looking for. We already have the problem that finding the answer to a specific question in the RAW thread is tricky. One has to scroll through 33 pages to make sure a given question hasn't already been asked.

The fact that RAI is less set in stone, that sometimes developers disagree, further complicates things. I feel that RAI really needs its own thread.

I could see the benefit of having both of these in a single document. But I'm not sure that having both in a single thread would be manageable.

[Kryx]

if I cared about individual houserules
RAI is not houserules. It is developer intent.

By the strict "RAW only" thread rules you would be unable to answer any questions and would have to answer: "Go post in the RAI thread to see dev tweets". It would be very arduous for anyone who uses the thread months or years later to find that follow up.

There is very little difficulty in saying: "AAAAA is what is written in the books. BBB is what was intended by the designers. See this url."

RAW matters, but not nearly as much as it did in last editions.

[heavyfuel]

@heavyfuel: The problem with that model, besides the obvious issues of having two places to get answers for the same question, is that some people would like to hear both RAW and RAI (for example, a DM who wants to know the reasoning behind an ambiguous rule in order to give their own interpretation to their players). I think the best solution would be to give both the RAW and RAI for every question. It's simple, easy to do, and gives as much information as possible. For example, if I asked a question and got the response that the rule is ambiguous then, in the current RAW thread, I could not ask for an explanation of the two sides of the debate. While a full synopsis of the argument doesn't really have much place for the rules Q&A thread, I do think that, for rules such as the controversial interaction of Crossbow Expert and hand crossbows, links to or quotes from Mearls and Crawford would be appropriate.



Then start a new thread. The RAW Q&A was never intended to be a place of discussion, this becomes evident when you read the text in the beginning. Giving the RAW and RAI for every question is what made the current thread messy, with half a dozen plus answers to every question as people debate the RAI. If the RAW is ambiguous, just answer "Ask your DM, or post a new thread". I know this is a ****ty answer most of the time, but it trully is the best answer for ambiguous rules in the RAW Q&A. If the ruling is controversial, but not ambiguous (Hand xbow and Xbow Expert or Polearm Master and Reach weapons) tell the RAW regardless, if the asker is unsatisfied, then he can always ask someplace else.

[Kryx]

If the RAW is ambiguous, just answer "Ask your DM, or post a new thread".
That's a terrible way to handle what people want which is how to interpret certain parts of text. If a general rules thread cannot answer the question then that thread fails at its role. Hence why only using RAW is insufficient.

[Person_Man]

As an aside, am I the only one annoyed that they chose Twitter as their channel for official rules clarifications? It makes complicated questions, or detailed answers to them, impossible. As a separate but related complaint, it's not really clear to me whether Crawford is clarifying rules, or creating new ones. If the former, I'd really like to know just what rules he's clarifying, and if the latter, that would be good to know, too.

I hate it too.

It seems like 90%ish of the RAW questions could be handled by 10ish thoughtful Sage Advice columns, which could then be incorporated into the online Basic materials and the next printing of the core books.

On a related matter, I think most RAW issues arise from the fact that the designers haven't decided whether the rules are meant to be read as a legal document or set of guidelines.

If the rules are a legal document, then its very important for WotC to strictly define key words, and to use those definitions consistently.

If the rules are a set of guidelines, then they need to include explanations regarding the intent of the rules and examples of how different DMs might adjudicate them differently.

You can even do both (defining some things strictly, and leaving other things open to interpretation). But you have to do so intentionally, and be clear about which is which.

[Easy_Lee]

That's a terrible way to handle what people want which is how to interpret certain parts of text. If a general rules thread cannot answer the question then that thread fails at its role. Hence why only using RAW is insufficient.

He said in the next sentence of his post that he knows it's a ****ty answer. In an ideal world, there would never be any ambiguity, or there would be exactly one sage advice column that answers every question in a timely and consistent manner.

But instead we are in a situation where every question, even ones that ought to be set in stone (such as: "is unarmed strike on the weapons table?" Or "Does an AoE affect everything inside of the AoE?") have multiple different answers depending on who you ask. Worse, even the developers cannot agree, and neither do they always agree with the text. See the differing dev responses for crossbow expert for an example of this.

Even worse, the dev tweets can be a real pain to find specifically because they use Twitter. One almost has to follow all of the devs and catalog their answers oneself to get a good idea of things. A thread to catalog and discuss these may, indeed, be beneficial.

But the fact remains that their answers are not RAW, and their answers often differ from the exact RAW. That's why we have a RAW thread, rather than a general rules thread. The RAW thread very much serves its purpose: providing a place to get by-the-book answers with no BS or opinions mixed in (except when people break the rules). I don't know about you, but I don't much give a damn what every last person thinks about a specific rule or line of text. Sometimes, I just want to know what the book says. That's what the RAW thread is for.

[Kryx]

In an ideal world, there would never be any ambiguity
But there always is. Not providing the ambiguity makes a RAW thread fail at sufficiently answering questions in a version of D&D that is not designed to have the rules be read like a legal docuement. (see Person_Man's post about this above)


Worse, even the developers cannot agree, and neither do they always agree with the text. See the differing dev responses for crossbow expert for an example of this.
This is not difficult to handle at all. Crawford sets rules, Mearls posts opinions. They even said so in a direct response to me on twitter (the one that was put on sage advice).
Mearls tweets are questionable and if provided should be disclaimered that it is only his opinion. It can be good to use in some rare cases where the question is otherwise unanswered though.


Even worse, the dev tweets can be a real pain to find specifically because they use Twitter.
I don't find this to be an issue at all. http://www.sageadvice.eu/


But the fact remains that their answers are not RAW
Pure RAW doesn't matter as 5e isn't written as a legal document.
Again, RAI (designer intent) is far more important.


I don't much give a damn what every last person thinks about a specific rule or line of text. Sometimes, I just want to know what the book says. That's what the RAW thread is for.
It's not "every last person". It's designers who created the rules. I surely care way more what Crawford says was intended with rules from the book than I do about the rules as they are written in the book since those words can be mis-interpreted (hence the reason for a Q&A thread in the first place!!).

[heavyfuel]

I'd really like to know where was it said that Crawford sets rules. Being the official sage never meant anything other than being the guy that is responsible for voicing the way he'd rule a specific subject. It never meant (for WotC at least) a source of RAW. If WotC did say he's a source of RAW, I'd like to know where.

And no one is arguing that RAI and designer intent isn't important, just that they aren't important for a RAW Thread

[Kryx]

I'd really like to know where was it said that Crawford sets rules. Being the official sage never meant anything other than being the guy that is responsible for voicing the way he'd rule a specific subject. It never meant (for WotC at least) a source of RAW. If WotC did say he's a source of RAW, I'd like to know where.
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/01/22/golden-rule-ix/
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings
It's not a source of RAW. RAW is what is written in the books only. Rules are more than just RAW - which is the point you keep missing.


And no one is arguing that RAI and designer intent isn't important, just that they aren't important for a RAW Thread
Then don't call it a Rules Q&A thread. It only covers one area of the rules. See Crawford's sage advice for RAW vs RAI vs RAF.

Once again, RAI is FAR more important than RAW when answering:

General interpretation questions with poor wording
How a rule is actually intended to be used (not how the words allow it to be abused)


Those are what people want out of a general Rules Q&A thread. RAW can only answer strict rules readings which 5e is not meant to be.

[cobaltstarfire]

Those are what people want out of a general Rules Q&A thread. RAW can only answer strict rules readings which 5e is not meant to be.

I think that both RAW and RAI are important, but I don't think a discussion forum Q&A thread would do well by allowing RAI into it without some very strict rules on how to go about it, because no one here really can know for sure what the intention of some rules are. There are a few that just aren't very clear, appear to be oversights, or are intended to be up to the GM. All of these things make RAI likely to cause the thread to get bogged down in debate and interpretation.


The way I see it, RAI just isn't cut and dry enough for a thread that wants concise and informative responses without spiraling down into debate.

[Kryx]

RAI just isn't cut and dry enough for a thread that wants concise and informative responses without spiraling down into debate.
It is when RAI is based on designer tweets. I'm not suggesting people put in their own opinions. I'm suggesting RAI backed up by a designer (Crawford)'s word.

Here is a great example where RAI would be useful:

Q396 With the warlock invocation Repelling Blast knock someone back each time Eldritch Blast hits (since at higher levels it can hit multiple times) or is it just once per round?

A 396 Yes, Agonizing Blast applies to each bolt fired. If you target one creature with multiple bolts, it may be pushed multiple times.

A 396 Addition, the text states that anyone hit by repelling blast is knocked back 10'. IIRC, it does not specify whether this is once/hit, once/cast, or otherwise. So it's possible that this requires DM interpretation.

RAW is not clear. If Crawford came along and said "We intended for Repelling Blast to only apply once total, not for each bolt". Then by RAW rules that has no place in a Rules Q&A thread.

That's crazy talk.

[Easy_Lee]

RAW is not clear. If Crawford came along and said "We intended for Repelling Blast to only apply once total, not for each bolt". Then by RAW rules that has no place in a Rules Q&A thread.

That's crazy talk.

It's the rules Q&A thread by RAW, though. Many agree that RAI is useful, we just don't all agree that it belongs in a RAW only thread. Some people care only about the RAW, and don't care in the slightest what the developers intended. It is not fair to those people to say that RAI is automatically valid in a RAW discussion.

[calebrus]

It is when RAI is based on designer tweets. I'm not suggesting people put in their own opinions. I'm suggesting RAI backed up by a designer (Crawford)'s word.

You think RAI is more important, and yet you will only accept Crawford's tweets?
That's counterproductive. It's counterproductive because Crawford has admitted that he always favors RAW over RAI. He look at a question from the words, independently from what was intended, and uses that base for most rulings. If he does it differently, he specifically states that the answer given is not RAW, but what's intended.... and he NEVER says that.
So Crawford answers RAW. But you think RAI is more important. Hence, Crawford's answers are not the ones that you are looking for.

You're looking for answers from Mearls, and Perkins, and Rodney. The guys that are DMs and were involved in development, but are specifically *not* the RAW guy. That guy is Crawford.

[Kryx]

It's the rules Q&A thread by RAW, though.
Cut the crap: Should the hypothetical post be in a Rules Q&A thread or not?

If not then that thread doesn't cover all rules question. It covers strict RAW only.



You're looking for answers from Mearls, and Perkins, and Rodney. The guys that are DMs and were involved in development, but are specifically *not* the RAW guy. That guy is Crawford.
Nope. I actually don't care for Mearls' rulings much at all. Most don't fit with RAW or care for balance.
Most of Crawford's ruling are based on RAW, you're correct. But he often clarifies what RAW was intended to do as well. It is especially useful when RAW is ambiguous.
Besides, you used to believe in Crawford as well until you got overruled by him on Action Surge & Spells. That is actually a great example of him clarifying RAW that SHOULD be on rules Q&A threads. Without being able to post tweets then that argument is never settled by RAW.

[Easy_Lee]

Cut the crap: Should the hypothetical post be in a Rules Q&A thread or not?

I clearly stated that I think RAW and RAI should be in different places, for all of the reasons I gave.

[Kryx]

http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/13/golden-rule-xiii/


crawford is the only official voice of the rules - otherwise, it's advice

Mearls considers Crawford's words "official". Not sure how people can continue to ignore them due to not liking the format.

[Easy_Lee]

Mearls considers Crawford's words "official". Not sure how people can continue to ignore them due to not liking the format.

Personally, I think Crawford's words are a perfectly good source of rulings. That said, not everyone agrees. I wouldn't tell them how to play, and I don't think most of them would tell me how to play, either.

Why I don't think RAW and RAI should be one generic Rules Q&A thread
To summarize my thoughts:

Not everyone who cares about RAW cares about RAI, and vice versa
Not every RAW question needs a RAI answer, and vice versa
It's already hard enough to sift through the RAW thread just to find out if a question has already been asked

Having RAI combined with RAW would make the thread unmanagable, particularly given how many more posts are often required to establish RAI and the fact that there are other developers/RAI sources basides Crawford (whether he's the official sage or not). And due to #1 and #2 above, I think it would be unfair to many if they had to sift through RAW just to find the RAI they were looking for (and vice versa).

Why I do think a RAI thread would be beneficial
I do think a RAI thread would be a good idea, if only to establish an easier means of finding those RAI posts one is looking for. Knowing what the developers were thinking, or how they would rule in a given circumstance, is certainly enlightening. In particular, it could be an invaluable tool for new DMs, who may need the guidance more than experienced folks.

We could even have a format for it, perhaps color-based, establishing different types of RAI. For example, three possible types of RAI:

RAI extrapolations based on other passages in the book. For example, elemental monk abilities are based on monk level, so it follows that warlock invocations should, indeed, go off of warlock level and not class level.
Posts by the Crawford, the official sage
Posts by developers other than Crawford

[heavyfuel]

Then don't call it a Rules Q&A thread.

I'm sorry, but when and where exactly did I call it that? These words, alone and in the presented context were never typed out by me.


RAW is not clear. If Crawford came along and said "We intended for Repelling Blast to only apply once total, not for each bolt". Then by RAW rules that has no place in a Rules Q&A thread.

That's crazy talk.

Much like Easy_Lee said, no, they have no place in a thread dedicated to RAW. That's not to say they aren't important, just not important in such a thread.


http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/13/golden-rule-xiii/

Mearls considers Crawford's words "official". Not sure how people can continue to ignore them due to not liking the format.

Mearls considering Crawford's words "official" makes them as official as me considering his words as "official", as in, neither considerations actually makes them so. Despite that, they aren't ignored. Quite on the contrary they are great assets to determine rulings, they just aren't RAW or official rules.

[themaque]

Mearls considers Crawford's words "official". Not sure how people can continue to ignore them due to not liking the format.

When you're talking about a company like WotC with a website specifically designed for dissemination of official information, saying "go to this guys personal twitter" is a fair complaint. Saying "oh well THIS developer's twitter is iffy but THIS developer's twitter is mostly spot on!" doesn't help issues.

Their word should be taken into consideration as RAI but it doesn't have the same effect for most people as actual published sources or errata.

keep a RAW thread as RAW and leave RAI for general posts to the community.

[calebrus]

Besides, you used to believe in Crawford as well until you got overruled by him on Action Surge & Spells.

What?
I've only been here for 2 months, and during that time I have made the statement that Crawford was the RAW guy (and deals with RAI very little) many, many times.
I actually don't care at all for the vast majority of Crawford's rulings, and never have, specifically because he completely ignores RAI 99% of the time and only answers in accordance with RAW, which I consider to be a useless way of resolving questions.

<edit:
and if you think I'm lying, just look at what showed up on sage (http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/13/golden-rule-xiii/) today.... from a couple of days ago (https://twitter.com/calebrus44/status/575539321169641472).... >


When you're talking about a company like WotC with a website specifically designed for dissemination of official information, saying "go to this guys personal twitter" is a fair complaint. Saying "oh well THIS developer's twitter is iffy but THIS developer's twitter is mostly spot on!" doesn't help issues.

Exactly. And the problem is that ever since Mearls stated that Crawford was the go-to guy for rules, 75% of the player base (and 100% of the rules lawyers) ignores every single thing that any developer says about anything unless it came from Crawford's mouth.
That's garbage as far as I'm concerned.

Crawford is the rules guy, yes. That means that he makes the rulings on what is "officially supported." That's all it means. His word has less than zero influence on the RAI, because he is the RAW guy.
I consider the RAI more important than the RAW. Therefore I personally consider Crawford's word as less important than other designers for my games, because he favors RAW while I favor RAI.
But once again, 100% of the rules lawyers will ignore absolutely anything that doesn't come straight from Crawford's mouth, so as much as I'd like to ignore him completely, on a forum such as this I don't have that option.

[Kryx]

Exactly. And the problem is that ever since Mearls stated that Crawford was the go-to guy for rules, 75% of the player base (and 100% of the rules lawyers) ignores every single thing that any developer says about anything unless it came from Crawford's mouth.
That's garbage as far as I'm concerned.
Mearls is ignored because many of his rulings are RAF which ignore balance.

All rules lawyers as evidenced in this thread want to ignore everthing not written in a book, even when it's considered official. That's a poor mindset based on 3.X where the rules were a legal document.

[themaque]

Mearls is ignored because many of his rulings are RAF which ignore balance.

All rules lawyers as evidenced in this thread want to ignore everthing not written in a book, even when it's considered official. That's a poor mindset based on 3.X where the rules were a legal document.

If it came from an official Wizards of the Coast Dungeons & Dragons Website, than yes it's official. Doesn't have to be written in a published book, just "published" from an official source.

If it's coming from that guys personal twitter account? Than it's RAI. RAI and GM interpretation is the way to go from table to table. But sometimes people want a clear cut simple answer. Not an interpretation nor a gut feeling. And that's a fair thing to desire. P

Public opinion can change on forums depending on the day of the week, time of day, and who happens to be online.

Do you have a link from the official D&D web site where they say "This man's twitter account is our FAQ?" I might have missed that, and would honestly like to see it if so.

[Kryx]

If it's coming from that guys personal twitter account? Than it's RAI. RAI and GM interpretation is the way to go from table to table.
This is false.
"crawford is the only official voice of the rules - otherwise, it's advice"
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/13/golden-rule-xiii/

Again, just because you don't like the medium they are using to convey rules doesn't mean they don't count as official.


Do you have a link from the official D&D web site where they say "This man's twitter account is our FAQ?" I might have missed that, and would honestly like to see it if so.
See post above and http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings
It was also posted earlier in this thread, but it seems you skipped over that.

[themaque]

This is false.
"crawford is the only official voice of the rules - otherwise, it's advice"
http://www.sageadvice.eu/2015/03/13/golden-rule-xiii/

Again, just because you don't like the medium they are using to convey rules doesn't mean they don't count as official.

See post above and http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings
It was also posted earlier in this thread, but it seems you skipped over that.

Okay, wow, If you try to be a little more condescending, that could really be helpful. :smallconfused:

Firstly, I mentioned that Twitter was a questionable source, using a non-WOTC web site quoting one guys twitter to reference another isn't a convincing citation. but we will get back to that. What your referencing I assume is the last paragraph of that web page. Calebrus posted on that earlier in this thread.


From the article:
"In next month’s Sage Advice, I’ll dive into an assortment of rules questions. In the meantime, you can follow me on Twitter (@JeremyECrawford), where I give short answers to some rules questions and gather material for future installments of this column."
In and of itself, even Crawford's twitter responses aren't official. He's the one that makes the official calls, but on twitter he's doing so in an unofficial capacity.
Imagine a Supreme Court Justice having dinner and making a statement that a certain law is unconstitutional. That doesn't mean it is overturned. That means he made an unofficial statement about it.

I see and second it from this source. He is saying he will answer some questions and compile them for the column, which is on an official page. He also gives a separate e-mail address earlier in the column stating "If you have a rule question that you’d like the D&D team to consider, send the question to [email protected]. We’ll do our best to answer as many questions as possible."

This can be interpreted, like you did, that either source is official. Or it can be interpreted like me and others seem to, that the official source will be coming out and we can get some rule calling opinions from him in the meantime. as supported when he said "To be clear, Twitter is a way to be in touch with you, our fellow players and DMs. The upcoming FAQ is official."
https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/518804989590777856

[heavyfuel]

Why is everyone saying word of Crawford is RAW? The only things poorly supporting that is a tweet by Mearls - which is as valid as a Facebook post by my grandmother - and an article on WotC's website where they say the sage gives suggestions. Crawford's tweets are in no other way endorsed by WotC and, therefore, not RAW.


The column should also reveal some perspectives that help you see parts of the game in a new light and that aid you in fine-tuning your D&D experience.

"Reveal some perspectives" isn't rules

[calebrus]

If it's coming from that guys personal twitter account? Than it's RAI.

I agree with you on everything except this.
The thing is (and this comes straight from the man, himself), Crawford always looks at a question from the words as they are written, independent from the intention, so he can see what players see, and answers based on that.
He gives the RAW answer (although, while in twitter, he gives it in an unofficial capacity).
I can tell you exactly what Crawford is going to say 98% of the time without asking him, because he answers predictably, because his method is predictable and has been explained.
He favors RAW and answers as such.

Looking at answers from Mike Mearls, and Rodney Thompson, and Chris Perkins (and others like that) who were involved in design, but are not the strict rules guy, is where we can interpret intent. If those guys suggest to play it in a way that differs from what the RAW strictly says, then that is the moment that the RAI can be gleaned from a designer.
But Crawford? Crawford does not answer RAI. He answers RAW, which is why Kryx simultaneously claiming to prefer RAI and only wanting to accept Crawford's tweets is a bit paradoxical.

[Kryx]

If those guys suggest to play it in a way that differs from what the RAW strictly says, then that is the moment that the RAI can be gleaned from a designer.
In the care of Mearls it's very commonly RAF, not RAI. RAI is very hard to assume.


Crawford does not answer RAI. He answers RAW, which is why Kryx simultaneously claiming to prefer RAI and only wanting to accept Crawford's tweets is a bit paradoxical.
This is not true. He often posts intent as well. Even one of them to you:

The intent is that the druid uses the bonus in the beast's stat block for any proficiency the druid lacks.



Here are many more based on searching for "intent":

The intent of Pact of the Tome is that the chosen cantrips become warlock spells with Cha. as the spellcasting ability.

The intent is that Trance replaces sleep, not the light activity that can fill part of a long rest.

The intent is that Use Magic Device does allow a rogue to try to use a scroll.

The intent is yes, the Arcane Trickster and the Eldritch Knight can use scrolls with wizard spells on them.

The intent is that the shield hand can be used for a somatic component if the holy shield is used to cast the spell.

The intent is no. The saving throw, not the attack, determines whether the poison takes effect after a hit.

The intent is that you have only one, but the Player's Handbook tells you how to customize one.

The quarterstaff is intentionally included in the Polearm Master feat.

The rule on knocking creatures unconscious is intentionally not limited to weapons.

The intent is that a level prerequisite in a warlock invocation refers to warlock level.

Immunity to nonmagical weapons intentionally leaves the door open for a monster to take damage from falling, being crushed, etc.

Many are RAW, but many also show what the developers intended blocks of words to do.

[calebrus]

This is not true. He often posts intent as well. Even one of them to you:

Here are many more based on searching for "intent":

Many are RAW, but many also show what the developers intended blocks of words to do.

And you'll notice that in every one of those cases, the strict RAW interpretation is in direct contradiction with what the RAI was, and creates a balance issue. Or in some cases was never stated clearly at all, so he clarified. And in a few cases he clarifies that the RAW and the RAI are in line, stating that X was intentional.
In cases where the RAI and the RAW are at odds, but there is no balance issue, he answers RAW.
And, exactly as I said earlier in this thread, he always specifically states that he is answering with the Intent in mind. If he doesn't specifically state that, then it is a strict RAW answer.

I could find examples of that as well. Crossbow Expert is one such example and springs to mind immediately. Mearls would require a second weapon, indicating intent. Crawford disagreed, and even stated specifically that he was answering RAW.

Crawford answers strict RAW. If his answer is anything but strict RAW, he states so clearly.
Because he is the RAW guy.
So claiming that you prefer RAI, and only accepting Crawford's tweets, is indeed a bit paradoxical.

[Kryx]

...
So he doesn't always answer RAW? Ok, glad we agree.

[calebrus]

So he doesn't always answer RAW? Ok, glad we agree.

You're twisting my words to make it sound like I said that Crawford never, under any circumstances, ansdwers with the RAI in mind.
That's not what I said.
I said he always looks at it from RAW first.



When I answer rules questions, I often come at them from one to three different perspectives.

RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own.

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.

RAI. Some of you are especially interested in knowing the intent behind a rule. That’s where RAI comes in: “rules as intended.” This approach is all about what the designers meant when they wrote something. 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.

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.

RAF. Regardless of what’s on the page or what the designers intended, D&D is meant to be fun, and the DM is the ringmaster at each game table. The best DMs shape the game on the fly to bring the most delight to his or her players. Such DMs aim for RAF, “rules as fun.”

We expect DMs to depart from the rules when running a particular campaign or when seeking the greatest happiness for a certain group of players. Sometimes my rules answers will include advice on achieving the RAF interpretation of a rule for your group.

I recommend a healthy mix of RAW, RAI, and RAF!

He answers RAW first and foremost. That's the first thing he considers. Unless he states otherwise, he is answering strict RAW and ignoring the intent. If he wants to show intent, he specifically says the word "intent" as you have shown.
But he almost never says that word, and when he does it's because the RAW was not even clear in the first place, or because there is a balance issue between the two differing RAW/RAI readings which he wants to nip in the bud to avoid abuse.
And even when there is potential abuse, he still prefers RAW rather than RAI unless the abuse is rampant.

https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/575826230143946752


Jeremy Crawford ‏@JeremyECrawford Mar 11
@calebrus44 The potential is high, but in play, we haven't seen that potential reached, with opportunity attacks and terrain in the mix.

calebrus44 ‏@calebrus44 Mar 11
@JeremyECrawford Once again, even if we disagree, thanks for taking the time to answer. :)

Jeremy Crawford ‏@JeremyECrawford Mar 11
@calebrus44 I'm happy to answer! And we disagreed? I explained how the spell works (RAW) and agreed about its potential power.

Jeremy Crawford ‏@JeremyECrawford
@calebrus44 The distinction I often make is between the potential and the actual abuse of a rule. I'm far more concerned about actual abuse.

So as you can see, straight from his own mouth, he answers RAW even when potential abuse exists. If he answers otherwise (as you have shown) he states that it is otherwise. If he does not specifically state that he is answering RAI, then he is answering strict RAW, and ignoring Intent.... and he even does it this way when potential abuse exists.

He answers dozens (and maybe hundreds) of questions every month. In six months, you have 12 examples of his answering about Intent.
He answers RAW.
The other guys are where you get the most insight into Intent.

[Kryx]

I think you and I are very similar in our DM styling. I also focus a lot on balance. I would also be very very cautious about "enter" working even if it's forced.

What I was making sure was clear is that Crawford is not only the RAW guy. He has many posts that are very insightful, even if they don't vary heavily from the RAW except in cases of large abuse.

I'm very curious what he posts about poisons when he posts his Q&A.



But these are the exact reasons I think a Rules Q&A thread should allow "the RAW guy" twitter posts about a topic. Others are questionable, but I think they should be allowed as well.



He answers RAW first and foremost. That's the first thing he considers.
Exactly how it should be imo. Though I would like more errata to get rid of things that are not balanced in the end.


The other guys are where you get the most insight into Intent.
I, again, heavily disagree here. Many "insight into Intent" posts are RAF posts. I don't care much for RAF. I care what they collectively decided was balanced.

[calebrus]

But these are the exact reasons I think a Rules Q&A thread should allow "the RAW guy" twitter posts about a topic. Others are questionable, but I think they should be allowed as well.

Ah, see, this is where our disconnect occurred.
Your previous posts made it look abundantly/apparently clear that you only thought tweets from Crawford were acceptable.
So you do, in fact, think the others are relevant, it's just that you question their legitimacy.

OK, I got it now. :smallwink:

[themaque]

I can easily agree they have a bearing in understanding, just questioned their validity as being official answers. I might have been to flippant in my answer there, or at least spoke poorly.

So we can agree Crawford can be an aid in RAW, but his tweets themselves are not?