The best RAW vs RAI arguments seen on the playground!

[Thealtruistorc]

Okay, this is an odd request, but I want to see what I can find here.

So for my law class, it was mentioned that we could get extra credit for finding good examples of arguments between "constructionist" viewpoints (as in following the rule to a T with mentality that it was designed to work that way) and the "living law" viewpoints (as in rules and laws should develop with meaning as they enter more unusual circumstances and thus require regular reinterpretation). Naturally, I thought of you guys and your man RAW vs RAI arguments, and was wondering if any of you had some interesting examples that you have come across or participated in on these forums that you would be willing to direct me to. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[daremetoidareyo]

I'll look for the thread where curmudgeon and I debated whether or not getting a feat through a domain requires the pre req to function.

[Troacctid]

RAW vs. RAI debates aren't as common as you might think. It's more common around here to see people disagree about what the RAW is or what the RAI is than to argue the one against the other, because when there's a clear and obvious disparity between them, you often see people agreeing to disagree. ("Well even though it technically works like that, at my table we'd play it like this." "Well at my table we'd play it as written." "Fine." "Fine!")

That said, here's one regarding Vow of Poverty that might interest you. http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?385186-Vow-of-Poverty-Question-A-Thought-Execise

[AvatarVecna]

The best "RAW vs RAI" stuff I've seen mostly comes out of the Dysfunction threads. It's all basically stuff that's "this is clearly how it was intended to work, this is clearly how it would make sense, and yet it works in this other way". I'm talking things like Monks not being proficient with unarmed strikes; the RAW is incredibly clear-cut in that by-the-rules Monks are not in any way proficient with unarmed strikes, while the RAI is incredibly obvious (when your entire class if focused around being a trained punching person, you should be a trained punching person).

[GilesTheCleric]

You might have some luck on the 5e subforum. That edition is still in its infancy, and folks seem to still be figuring out how to approach it. Plus, you get a good dynamic between the people new to d&d and those who come to it from other editions (ie from 3.5 with RAW heavy on their minds). Threads regarding how the hiding rules work used to be a hot topic, but I haven't lurked there for a while.

[Beheld]

Don't understand why you would ever argue the RAW vs RAI? The Raw is something, and you can argue about that, and the RAI might exist or might not, and you can argue that, but implicitly in RAW vs RAI, you must mean arguing you should use one and not the other. But the answer is almost always that you should use neither (if there is any significant dispute) because the dispute only exists because the RAW is unclear or produces bad results. So you should probably make some better rules than either the RAW or RAI.

[Necroticplague]

You might have some luck on the 5e subforum. That edition is still in its infancy, and folks seem to still be figuring out how to approach it. Plus, you get a good dynamic between the people new to d&d and those who come to it from other editions (ie from 3.5 with RAW heavy on their minds). Threads regarding how the hiding rules work used to be a hot topic, but I haven't lurked there for a while.

IIRC, there used to be some pretty big RAW vs. RAI over Crossbow Expertise, too.

[daremetoidareyo]

here it is: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?424197-3-5-Augment-Summoning-for-Druids-(and-an-interesting-derail-about-bonus-feats)&highlight=augment+summoning
6 pages long.

A derail about primacy of PHB vs. MM. The PHB has primacy on game rules, the MM has primacy on special abilities. The BOED has secondary source status but refers to the fact that most feats are EX abilities. Thus making things really weird for an analysis where EX, SU, spell like abilities have primacy over the feats that one selects in a different book that speaks about the rules.

A case where sticking to RAW invalidates the monk class entirely, the ranger is hobbled, the samurai is further hobbled, and so on.

[Larrx]

I don't think it was ever really an argument, but the RAW interpretation of a rogue's flanking immunity was pretty fun.

[Crake]

Human heritage on an undead character to make you immune to turning is something that is RAW correct, but, at least IMO completely stupid, yet some people legitimately run it that way.

[Malimar]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472213-Quicken-Spell-Free-or-Swift-action) is a pretty fun one from just yesterday.

[Nettlekid]

What I've seen more often than arguments over a reading, RAW vs RAI, is how important RAW is. Personally I think it's extremely secondary to what the DM wants the effect to be, and usually the DM is taking a stab at figuring out RAI when dealing with the effect. But I've seen other people very strongly insist that RAW should take precedence and the DM should work to make the game function (adjudicating Dysfunctions and such), but otherwise be restrained by the existing RAW.

[Beheld]

What I've seen more often than arguments over a reading, RAW vs RAI, is how important RAW is. Personally I think it's extremely secondary to what the DM wants the effect to be, and usually the DM is taking a stab at figuring out RAI when dealing with the effect. But I've seen other people very strongly insist that RAW should take precedence and the DM should work to make the game function (adjudicating Dysfunctions and such), but otherwise be restrained by the existing RAW.

I think that the RAW should be adhered to unless you houserule otherwise, but that since the purpose of rules is for everyone to be on the same page when making decisions (including character building decisions) that the method of institution houserules should 1) involve discussion with the players, and 2) Never ever ever ever ever be about what figuring out the RAI is, since the RAI is pointless, and the only important things are a) What everyone thought the rules were when they made their characters/designed the encounter/campaign, and b) what is best for the game going forward.

[Flickerdart]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472213-Quicken-Spell-Free-or-Swift-action) is a pretty fun one from just yesterday.
That's still not a RAI vs RAW thread - the entire premise is various interpretations of RAW when it comes to primary sources vs most recent sources.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

There's the old debate about Drowning rules.

Here's the way it works.


When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp). In the following round, she drops to -1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns.

RAW Crowd: This means if my ally is at -9, I can bring them up to zero by shoving their head in a bucket of water. After all, since they are already unconscious by virtue of bleeding out, she automatically fails her Con check and thus begins to drown, changing the hit point total to the defined 0 hit points, meaning stable.

RAI Crowd: This is silly, you cannot heal someone by shoving their head in a bucket. Drowning rules only apply if the hit point total is above zero. If hit points are at zero, you proceed to the second step (-1 hit points), and people below -1 just flat out die.

Also, just about ANY argument concerning the Grapple rules...

[zergling.exe]

There's the old debate about Drowning rules.

Here's the way it works.



RAW Crowd: This means if my ally is at -9, I can bring them up to zero by shoving their head in a bucket of water. After all, since they are already unconscious by virtue of bleeding out, she automatically fails her Con check and thus begins to drown, changing the hit point total to the defined 0 hit points, meaning stable.

RAI Crowd: This is silly, you cannot heal someone by shoving their head in a bucket. Drowning rules only apply if the hit point total is above zero. If hit points are at zero, you proceed to the second step (-1 hit points), and people below -1 just flat out die.

Also, just about ANY argument concerning the Grapple rules...

Does that include the after part of not being able to stop drowning?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Does that include the after part of not being able to stop drowning?

That is a whole 'nother debate that is RAW/RAI.

RAW, there is no defined method of avoiding drowning once the con check has failed. RAI, removing them from the suffocation source will save them.

[Telonius]

Book of Exalted Deeds is a source of at least two.

I don't know where this first came up, but Vow of Poverty is probably Exhibit A. From a strict reading, a person with Vow of Poverty technically can't "own or use any material possessions." There is a very specific list of exceptions. Technically, a character with Vow of Poverty would violate the vow by doing something as simple as using a doorknob (since a door is a material possession). Taking that strict of an interpretation is almost universally considered stupid, against RAI, and ignored; but it's still on the books as RAW.

Another one from BoED: Vow of Abstinence. Grants bonuses against poisons and drugs, provided that you're subjected to the drug unwillingly. But, being subjected to a drug unwillingly explicitly causes you to lose the benefits of the vow. The feat, as written, does nothing against drugs. (Poison seems to work fine). RaI is pretty obvious that there was supposed to be some kind of bonus against drugs, but RAW? Nope.

[eggynack]

here it is: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?424197-3-5-Augment-Summoning-for-Druids-(and-an-interesting-derail-about-bonus-feats)&highlight=augment+summoning
6 pages long.

A derail about primacy of PHB vs. MM. The PHB has primacy on game rules, the MM has primacy on special abilities. The BOED has secondary source status but refers to the fact that most feats are EX abilities. Thus making things really weird for an analysis where EX, SU, spell like abilities have primacy over the feats that one selects in a different book that speaks about the rules.

A case where sticking to RAW invalidates the monk class entirely, the ranger is hobbled, the samurai is further hobbled, and so on.
Yeah, that thread was fun, though I personally liked it more because it wasn't just your standard RAW versus RAI argument, the ones that become all too common where Curmudgeon is involved. Though, actually, given that Curmudgeon often gets involved in these things, it may be worth reading through his back catalog of posts under the assumption that he's claimed a bunch of RAW things that people have disliked. I can remember at least one argument I've had with him concerning monks and unarmed strike proficiency. He's possibly the most extreme proponent of RAW over RAI, and extreme cases bring about arguments.

[animewatcha]

This long and monk bonus feats aren't mentioned yet? Not even the Martial Monk arguments ( ignoring prereqs of fighter bonus feats )? Even got Curmudgeon to switch his approach to it from ' being able to select them ' to 'ability to use them ' on his argument about it ( what I've seen ).

[nedz]

There are a lot of questions which have no answer, but that's mainly because of a gap in the rules. We tend to take the view that "you have to ask your DM" because it's completely open to interpretation.

I can give multiple examples, but they're not what you are looking for.

There are other chestnuts which lie outside of RAW, e.g. What tier is the Spirit Shaman ? Again, no hard answers - just opinions either way.

[Duke of Urrel]

I can point to one example of an argument that employed plausible original intent against the exact letter of the RAW.

I myself argued like this in a recent thread. The time was 8:57 PM on the 16th of December 2016, or yesterday at the time of this writing. Here it is (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472213-Quicken-Spell-Free-or-Swift-action/page4).

More radically and controversially, I argued as an armchair originalist against the RAW in this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?389291-Spell-Resistance-Rule-3-5-Mis-Written-A-Modest-Proposal&p=18562577#post18562577) that I started.

[Abithrios]

Another debate I have seen several times is the question of whether masterwork tools exist for all skills. The player's handbook gives a price for such equipment, but stops just short of actually saying that they exist. Thus, I believe that the RAW gives a price for a class of items that may or may not exist.

Likewise, there is a table for estimating prices of custom magic items, but I believe that the text surrounding the table is more explicit about needing to ask the DM.

[Pluto!]

Any post by Curmudgeon.

I still can't tell whether they're an elaborate satire of gamer pedantry.

[Twurps]

A fine examplefrom earlier today (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?472571-Death-From-Above)
by now this should be obvious, but look for Curmudgeon's post for the relevant RAW interpretation.

[Fitz10019]

The first thing that came to mind for me was taking 20 on ... skill checks.
Here's that thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?349241-Taking-20-on-skills-Disguise-specfically).

[Curmudgeon]

This long and monk bonus feats aren't mentioned yet? Not even the Martial Monk arguments ( ignoring prereqs of fighter bonus feats )? Even got Curmudgeon to switch his approach to it from ' being able to select them ' to 'ability to use them ' on his argument about it ( what I've seen ).
There's no switch; I just have an explicit house rule which allows Monks to also use the 6 Bonus Feat selections. Martial Monk gets no help from that HR unless the feat is also one of the standard 6 (which are all on the Fighter Bonus Feat list).