RAW and You

[Jack Mann]

The phrase "Rules as Written" has come up a lot on these boards,and sometimes it's caused a certain amount of consternation. To help alleviate the problem, I'm going to discuss RAW and several other terms, and how they apply to discussions here on the boards.

First off, let's go into terminology.

Rules as written are just that: the rules as they are written down in the books (and corrected in the errata). It is generally assumed to include all official 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons books. Keep in mind that the FAQ is only meant to clarify the rules. If it contradicts the rules, it is technically wrong (though the ruling may still be the one you should use; more on that later).

RAI stands for the rules as intended. This is a tricky term, since you can never be sure exactly what the designers meant, unless they actually come out and say so. However, it can be useful to look at probable intent when looking at a tricky ruling, especially when something can be interpreted several ways, or it appears it was misworded.

Rule zero is the term used for a DM's ability to interpret and change the rules as he or she sees fit. This is spelled out in the DMG (pages 6 and 14), and it's a good thing, too, since you can't always wait for errata to fix the mistakes.

House rules spring from rule zero. These are rulings by the DM (or set of DMs) that are carried from situation to situation. In a group with several DMs, they may either have a set of house rules everyone follows, or each DM may have their own, personal set.

These are pretty basic, and I think most people know the terms well enough already, but I want to be absolutely clear.

Now, the problems people come into occur when it's unclear when someone is talking about the RAW, the RAI, or their own personal house rules. Someone will ask, "Is a monk proficient with unarmed strikes?" Two people say yes, one person says no. Two pages later, you find that one person means that the rules clearly intended for the monk to be proficient, one person meant that they always give monks proficiency with unarmed strikes, and the third was simply quoting the RAW. Then they argue for another two pages, because frankly we're a bunch of nerds here, and we like to argue.

Quite a problem. What can we do to keep this confusion out of the discussion? Let's talk about when each is appropriate.

Most rules discussions should stem from the RAW. This is simply because the RAW is the common framework we're all working from. Not everyone bans polymorph. Not everyone gives sorcerers eschew materials. Not everyone bans natural spell. Not everyone allows you to swing two weapons as a standard action. If someone is asking what the rules say, disregard your house rules, at least until their initial questions have been answered.

Now, sometimes a rule has two possible correct interpretations. For example, Southern Magician could potentially qualify a sorcerer for mystic theurge. However, this is almost certainly not what the designers intended. Here you want to talk about the RAI. This is also helpful when something appears to have been misworded, or left out, like the aforementioned monk's proficiency. Sometimes, they screw up, and it's best to try and figure out what they meant to say. Sure, you can't be sure you're interpreting it right, but it's a good place to start.

Rule zero and house rules should be brought up when you're trying to fix rules that don't work the way you want. For example, drowning. The drowning rules, as written, are highly abusable/unworkable. They shouldn't be used as written. So, you can discuss what your house rules are for that situation. Remind newer DMs of rule zero, so they won't be afraid to change a rule that doesn't work.

Now that we've gone over when each is appropriate, how can we make it clear which is which in our posts?

I think the key here is the difference between "is" and "should be." The RAW is what is, what something does. When you say "the outsider type gives you proficiency with all martial weapons," people are going to assume that you're talking about the RAW. If you say, "Extra spell shouldn't give you spells outside of your class list," they'll assume you're talking about RAI, or possibly house rules. Unfortunately, many people will use "is" and "does" when talking about their house rules or the RAI, and then get upset when someone corrects them.

When you want to talk about the game as you think it ought to be played, make it clear. Don't just say, "this is how it works," and expect people to pick up on the fact that it's just your interpretation. Say, "this is how we ruled it in our group," or "I think it should work this way."

Conversely, when you bring up the RAW, keep it clear that you're only talking about what the rules say. Let people know that you are not saying they need to run their games that way. Otherwise, they may think you're telling them how to run their game.

And for the love of Gygax, be clear on what's a house rule and what's the RAW. I've seen a lot of people defending the RAW with things like, "Clerics aren't overpowered if you have their gods take away their spells," or "Druids can't turn into any animal they haven't dissected and made a DC 25 Intelligence check to show they're familiar with the creature." These are house rules. They may be implied by the rules in some way, but they are not, in fact, part of the RAW. I see a lot of people who are probably good DMs. They make a lot of rulings and house rules that sound like they make the game fun for their players. But then they'll tell you until they're blue in the face that everything they do is purely by the rules as written. They'll lay out a list of house rules that would make Monte Cook blush, and then say that the rules are balanced. The rules are balanced, hallelujah! Sure, if you change the rules.

So, let's try and understand each other better, so we can spend less time arguing over who's talking about what, and more time arguing important things, like monkeys. And ninjas. And monkey ninjas.

Hold on, I've got a new campaign idea. Might need some house rules, though...

[Like a Lion]

I say, ol' chap, good show, eh wot!

Well done.

[Fax Celestis]

*dubs this the Manycoats Guideline.*

[TO_Incognito]

I think the key here is the difference between "is" and "should be." The RAW is what is, what something does. When you say "the outsider type gives you proficiency with all martial weapons," people are going to assume that you're talking about the RAW. If you say, "Extra spell shouldn't give you spells outside of your class list," they'll assume you're talking about RAI, or possibly house rules. Unfortunately, many people will use "is" and "does" when talking about their house rules or the RAI, and then get upset when someone corrects them.

In short, every rules dispute in the entire d20 system stems from uneducated people who don't know what the subjunctive mood is.


:smallwink:

[Yuki Akuma]

In short, every rules dispute in the entire d20 system stems from uneducated people who don't know what the subjunctive mood is.


:smallwink:

In general, people are uneducated and don't know the different between subjective and objective.

Even online. Actually, I'd even say especially online, where no one can punch them in the teeth for being annoying.

[greenknight]

That's a pretty good summary of the situation, but the real problem is that some people think their house rules are the RAW. They aren’t going to say this is their interpretation or how their group plays the game, they are going to say this is how it is, and how the rules are written (or at the very least, how they are meant to be interpreted, although even getting that far is often a struggle). I’ve often seen people dismiss problems with the RAW with the simple comment – “Don’t be silly, no-one plays that way” despite the fact that the RAW state that playing that way is perfectly acceptable. That’s what really muddies the water with rules debates, IME.

[Yuki Akuma]

That's a pretty good summary of the situation, but the real problem is that some people think their house rules are the RAW. They aren’t going to say this is their interpretation or how their group plays the game, they are going to say this is how it is, and how the rules are written (or at the very least, how they are meant to be interpreted, although even getting that far is often a struggle). I’ve often seen people dismiss problems with the RAW with the simple comment – “Don’t be silly, no-one plays that way” despite the fact that the RAW state that playing that way is perfectly acceptable. That’s what really muddies the water with rules debates, IME.

I'm suddenly reminded of several comments in a thread about multiclassing penalties.

Ugh. :smallannoyed:

[Falrin]

I have a feeling lots of people will refer to this thread.
I also have a feeling that some people will get this reference more than once. A lot more.

Nice work.

[Merlin the Tuna]

In such a discussion, I feel compelled to drop a link to Caelic's Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8535942&postcount=1). The following bit in particular is applicable.
3. RAW is a myth.
This is one of the dirty little secrets of the board. The Most Holy RAW is invoked continuously by those who want to give their arguments the veneer of officiality. The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to.

This game cannot be played without interpretation and the judicious application of common sense. Try to play the game strictly and exclusively by the rules as written, and you have an unplayable game.

Using "RAW" as a defense is similarly meaningless--particularly when your defense rests on interpretation. If you're going to claim that your build is RAW, you'd better be able to make sure that the rules specifically uphold your claim...not simply that they're sort of vague and COULD be interpreted in such a way as to not FORBID your claim.

This becomes particularly important when your claim is especially controversial.

Yes, builds should adhere to the rules as written. Yes, any exceptions to that should be noted. But the RAW as some sort of entity unto itself, capable of rendering a build immune to criticism, is not a useful construction, and causes more problems than it solves.

[TheOOB]

Just remember kiddies, unless stated otherwise, everyone assumes you're talking RAW.

Just a side note, whenever you are making a statement about RAW, please put a link to the SRD with the statement. It helps everyone confirm the validity of the statement and saves time overall.

[greenknight]

Just a side note, whenever you are making a statement about RAW, please put a link to the SRD with the statement. It helps everyone confirm the validity of the statement and saves time overall.

Unfortunately, that's not always possible since several game systems (and even many books for 3.0 and 3.5e) aren't contained in a SRD. Still, it is a good idea to quote the book and page reference when you're making a statement you think others are going to question.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

:smallamused:

Ok, so by RAW, is the katana the mightiest weapon that ever existed?

*ducks*

[TheOOB]

That brings up an interesting question. Does supplements such as the complete series count as RAW, or only the core rulesbooks.

[Merlin the Tuna]

That brings up an interesting question. Does supplements such as the complete series count as RAW, or only the core rulesbooks.Yes, though in general the core trumps supplements.

[Emperor Tippy]

Yes, though in general the core trumps supplements.

Incorrect. The newer source trumps the older.

RAW is all books and errata. Core is DMG, PHB, MM

[Jack Mann]

Hmm. I don't think that Caelic's post is really opposed to mine, Merlin. As I said, very few people play purely by the RAW, and at the least, interpretation is necessary. My basic point is that when you make the interpretations, and especially when you make changes, it's important to let people know straight off that it's an interpretation, rather than a clearly-stated part of the RAW.

He even admits that builds (the focus of his post) should stick to the rules as they are written, even though they require a certain amount of interpretation. But just as in optimization, when you have to make an interpretation, especially one that might be wrong, then it's important to note it and then defend it, rather than simply treating it as the One True Way, rendering builds (or arguments) invulnerable.

The RAW is flawed, yes, but it's still the basic framework we have for communicating about the rules, and so it's an important starting point for any discussions. It's the place marked on everyone's map. If you want people to know where you're coming from, you have to show where it is in relation to the RAW.

Of course, if I misinterpreted you, and you weren't implying my post was contradicted by Caelic's, then I apologize for the unnecessary verbiage.

EDIT:
Incorrect. The newer source trumps the older.

RAW is all books and errata. Core is DMG, PHB, MM

Actually, primary source trumps newer, unless the newer source is explicitly meant as errata. If, say, Complete Warrior had something in it that contradicted the combat rules in the PHB, then it's wrong, unless that section states that it is intended to act as errata.

[Merlin the Tuna]

Hmm. I don't think that Caelic's post is really opposed to mine, Merlin.Indeed, this wasn't my intent. I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but there's often a tendency to treat RAW as all that is and all that can ever be... at which point you end up with healing-through-drowning and actions-after-death... and the rules end up getting treated as a bludgeon. The number of times I've heard someone fall back on "WHAT I'm SAYING IS RAW, YOU'RE WRONG!" is astounding, especially when their backing in the rules is tenuous at best.

[Corolinth]

The flaw in this thread is that "rule 0" is, by definition, "RAW". The DMG is an instruction manual for how to change the rules to suit your campaign.

[Merlin the Tuna]

The flaw in this thread is that "rule 0" is, by definition, "RAW". The DMG is an instruction manual for how to change the rules to suit your campaign.The actual rules are the only common context we have though. To ignore that because somewhere, someone might decide to play differently is just plain stupid.

[Piccamo]

The flaw in this thread is that "rule 0" is, by definition, "RAW". The DMG is an instruction manual for how to change the rules to suit your campaign.

The flaw in this statement is that "rule 0" is there to help fix rules that don't make sense. If you are going to say "rule 0 everything" then why are you bothering with dice? You could just as easily say that playing with no dice and classless is raw because "rule 0" lets you do so. If that is the case you are no longer playing anything resembling DnD. You are playing something that shares the name and may be having fun with it. The problem with that is you aren't helping anyone.

[Neon Knight]

This should be stickied. That is all.

[Jack Mann]

"Could you guys give me some help? I'm new to D&D, and I want to know what class I should play."

"You should play an elven fighter."

"Okay. Why?"

"Because they can finesse greatswords."

"They... can? I don't see that in the rulebook."

"Well, my DM rule zeroed it. He thought it was stupid that elves had to rely on strength."

"How... how does that help me?"

"Hey, don't blame me. It's rule zero. You can't argue with rule zero."

See, here's the problem. Rule zero should never be a part of the basic assumption when someone states their problem or begins the discussion, or things become meaningless. You assume that the rules work the way they're already presented, and then, at most, you suggest things the DM might want to apply rule zero to.

We want to be able to discuss things without having to go through every possible houserule first. That's why rule zero is not assumed when talking about the RAW.

[Ramza00]

Well said.

[brian c]

EDIT:

Actually, primary source trumps newer, unless the newer source is explicitly meant as errata. If, say, Complete Warrior had something in it that contradicted the combat rules in the PHB, then it's wrong, unless that section states that it is intended to act as errata.

Eh... I think that this is actually described in a book somewhere (RAW, that is) but I don't know where so don't quote me on that. Basically, for general game rules the Core books (PHB, MM, DMG) trump newer material unless the newer material explicitly says that it overrides the Core rules. However, for everything else (feats, PrCs, spells, etc) the newest published version is the "official" version, and I think that's what Emperor Tippy was thinking of.

[Jack Mann]

Agreed. For specific feats, spells, and the like, the newest version is the primary source.

This is likely because when a feat or spell is reprinted, it's often as an update. As well, the feat or spell can simply be copied and pasted into the new book, making it less likely for unintentional errors to creep in. When rules are referenced, they're likely to be paraphrased, which increases the possibility of error. So, it's necessary to make it absolutely clear when it's actually meant to be an update to help prevent those sorts of errors from creeping in.

[Saph]

Very good post.

One thing I think needs adding, though: a third category, RAU. As well as RAW and RAI, you also need Read As Used. This is less solid than Read As Written, but more solid than Read As Intended.

There are some things in the D&D ruleset that are RAW-legal, but so game-breaking/abuseable that no halfway competent gaming group will allow them. If something is so overwhelmingly powerful that it's going to be disallowed by any sane DM, then you need to start taking into account RAU when you discuss it. An example would be using Arcane Genesis to create a demiplane full of gold and diamonds, giving you infinite wealth for the cost of 5,000 XP. RAW acceptable? Maybe. RAI acceptable? Fairly obvious editing error. RAU acceptable? Definitely not - and it's the last one that's really important, because that's the one that determines whether your DM will allow it in a game.

In this sense, houserules DO have to be part of the basic assumption. Otherwise, you get cases like this:

"Could you give me advice on what equipment to get for my 18th-level wizard?"
"Get a copy of every epic item and every non-epic item in the SRD."
"What? How am I supposed to afford all that?"
"Use Arcane Genesis to create infinite wealth. It's RAW legal, so we have to assume that it's allowed."
"But there's no way my DM would allow that."
"Well, that's not our problem. You should have told us that to begin with."

- Saph

[Jayabalard]

Just remember kiddies, unless stated otherwise, everyone assumes you're talking RAW..Certianly it's not everyone; nor am I even convinced that it's majority. A good portion of people are going to assume that you're talking about various levels of interpretations/variations on RAW... it's certainly the safer assumption.

[Piccamo]

Very good post.

One thing I think needs adding, though: a third category, RAU. As well as RAW and RAI, you also need Read As Used. This is less solid than Read As Written, but more solid than Read As Intended.

There are some things in the D&D ruleset that are RAW-legal, but so game-breaking/abuseable that no halfway competent gaming group will allow them. If something is so overwhelmingly powerful that it's going to be disallowed by any sane DM, then you need to start taking into account RAU when you discuss it. An example would be using Arcane Genesis to create a demiplane full of gold and diamonds, giving you infinite wealth for the cost of 5,000 XP. RAW acceptable? Maybe. RAI acceptable? Fairly obvious editing error. RAU acceptable? Definitely not - and it's the last one that's really important, because that's the one that determines whether your DM will allow it in a game.

Unfortunately this is purely subjective. What is "sane" to one gaming group may not be to another. You could say that you feel no "sane" DM would allow leap attack to stack with Frenzied Berserker bonuses, while I would argue that they should.



Certianly it's not everyone; nor am I even convinced that it's majority. A good portion of people are going to assume that you're talking about various levels of interpretations/variations on RAW... it's certainly the safer assumption.
So you think there should be no real basis for 2 people to discuss DnD? By this logic I could say "Well there's this variant where Barbarians get access to 9th level spells." I may be talking about a gestalt Barbarian//Wizard, but the person isn't playing a gestalt campaign. I think the person asking about the strength of the barbarian would probably want to know about the PHB version, not your variant, house-ruled version.

[Saph]

Unfortunately this is purely subjective. What is "sane" to one gaming group may not be to another.

You're making it out to be some sort of impossible paradox when it really isn't.

Look; if 95% of DMs won't allow something in a game, then it doesn't matter that much if the remaining 5% will. Whether you consider something "sane" may be subjective, but the fraction of DMs that will or won't allow it is not subjective - it's a hard number. So any useful discussion of the game has to take it into account, unless you want everything you say to only be relevant to 5% of the players.

In the case of the Arcane Genesis trick I mentioned above, it gives a PC infinite wealth as soon as they can use the spell, making the treasure system and WBL guidelines (and by extension, the CR system) redundant. At this point your game's split so far from normal D&D that any advice you give is going to be basically useless to anyone playing with finite wealth totals.

Playing D&D requires a certain minimum of common sense. There's no way around this. Trying to reduce the game to RAW-only with no common sense at all just ends up producing an unplayable mess.

- Saph

[Meat Shield]

Frankly we're a bunch of nerds here, and we like to argue.
Sigged for purity and clarity of truth.

I think one aspect of this that is not to be underestimated is that as much as we have these differences of opinion and intent here on these boards, these same things happen within the individual gaming groups in RL. I know we have these discussions between my players and I all the time.

[Sir Giacomo]

Great post! Should definitely be made sticky!

One issue with the examples towards the end, though:



And for the love of Gygax, be clear on what's a house rule and what's the RAW. I've seen a lot of people defending the RAW with things like, "Clerics aren't overpowered if you have their gods take away their spells," or "Druids can't turn into any animal they haven't dissected and made a DC 25 Intelligence check to show they're familiar with the creature." These are house rules. They may be implied by the rules in some way, but they are not, in fact, part of the RAW. I see a lot of people who are probably good DMs. They make a lot of rulings and house rules that sound like they make the game fun for their players. But then they'll tell you until they're blue in the face that everything they do is purely by the rules as written. They'll lay out a list of house rules that would make Monte Cook blush, and then say that the rules are balanced. The rules are balanced, hallelujah! Sure, if you change the rules.


You see, using your interpretations of RAW, RAI and rule 0 and houserule, as an example the "ex" entries for divine caster restrictions imo are more like this:
RAW: ex-cleric/ex-druid sections plus atonement spell clearly outline that there is a possibility dependent on both the player and the DM (who plays the deity as npc or sets the standard of religions in his campaign) that druids and clerics CAN lose at times ALL their class abilities.
RAI: it apparently is meant to be a rare thing and needs careful handling of DM and player. Apparently, though, due to the high power of spells of these classes it is not meant to never happen or meaning that a player regardless of his actions will never lose his powers due to the "ex" entries.
Rule 0: The DM has the ultimate call as a referee on what exactly the texts on the "ex" sections mean.
Houserule: Player and DM should agree on certain easily verifiable aspects of what would constitute sacrilege in the religion of their characters. Say, for the druid instead of teaching a secret language ever to touch cold iron or some such, and that a number of sacrileges is needed to lose ALL class abilities (and a gradual loss of powers may be preferable). In fact, since the original RAW is so openly worded, a houserule is needed in any case (also those who then say that the "ex" sections do not matter basically houserule, because in the RAW they do matter).

But otherwise, great post!

- Giacomo

[Droodle]

In the case of the Arcane Genesis trick I mentioned above, it gives a PC infinite wealth as soon as they can use the spell, making the treasure system and WBL guidelines (and by extension, the CR system) redundant. At this point your game's split so far from normal D&D that any advice you give is going to be basically useless to anyone playing with finite wealth totals. If RAU is going to forbid this abuse of Arcane Genesis, then no one is going to be seriously suggest using it as a tactic. Admitting that RAW allows such an abuse is not the same thing as suggesting or requiring it. Also, I think you underestimate the level of RAW abuse that some people allow in their games. I've seen a DM allow a rogue with a ring of wishes and a deck of many things become insanely powerful and utterly wreck the balance of his campaign by allowing the rogue to use the ring of wishes to pick all the "good" cards from the deck without risking drawing any of the "bad" ones (which is an even bigger abuse than your Arcane Genesis example). What you are looking for is actually the Rules As Any Sane Or Moderately Intelligent Person With Even An Ounce Of Foresight Would Use Them or "RAASOMIPWEAOOFWUT", not RAU. Remember; most of the inane suggestions you see on the boards have probably been allowed in somebody's game....so they are used.

[Saph]

If RAU is going to forbid this abuse of Arcane Genesis, then no one is going to be seriously suggest using it as a tactic.

Exactly! That's the point I'm trying to make. Anyone with any kind of common sense takes RAU into account when they're giving build/RP/optimisation advice. So RAW and RAI aren't the only readings that people use.

"Rules As Any Sane Or Moderately Intelligent Person With Even An Ounce Of Foresight Would Use Them" is generally as useful or more useful than RAW. It's worth paying attention to both of them.

- Saph

[Dausuul]

Very good post.

One thing I think needs adding, though: a third category, RAU. As well as RAW and RAI, you also need Read As Used. This is less solid than Read As Written, but more solid than Read As Intended.

There are some things in the D&D ruleset that are RAW-legal, but so game-breaking/abuseable that no halfway competent gaming group will allow them. If something is so overwhelmingly powerful that it's going to be disallowed by any sane DM, then you need to start taking into account RAU when you discuss it. An example would be using Arcane Genesis to create a demiplane full of gold and diamonds, giving you infinite wealth for the cost of 5,000 XP. RAW acceptable? Maybe. RAI acceptable? Fairly obvious editing error. RAU acceptable? Definitely not - and it's the last one that's really important, because that's the one that determines whether your DM will allow it in a game.

In this sense, houserules DO have to be part of the basic assumption. Otherwise, you get cases like this:

"Could you give me advice on what equipment to get for my 18th-level wizard?"
"Get a copy of every epic item and every non-epic item in the SRD."
"What? How am I supposed to afford all that?"
"Use Arcane Genesis to create infinite wealth. It's RAW legal, so we have to assume that it's allowed."
"But there's no way my DM would allow that."
"Well, that's not our problem. You should have told us that to begin with."

- Saph

Good point. After all, it is technically a house rule to say that dead people have to lie down and stop fighting. At the same time, it's important to distinguish between house rules that are effectively universal and house rules that are merely popular.

A near-universal house rule would be, "You can't use a ring of three wishes to get three more rings of three wishes and thereby become Infinite Wish Man." The rationales vary from DM to DM--some will say it's because wishes cast from items can't produce effects that require an additional XP cost, some will say it's because they never hand out such rings in the first place and don't allow their use, and some will say you just aren't allowed to pull that crap on penalty of rocks falling--but it's safe to say that you will not be allowed to do this (or will be punished in a terminal fashion for doing it) in any campaign you're ever likely to play in. "No Infinite Wish cheese" is definitely Rules As Used.

A popular but not universal house rule would be, "You can't use a ring of three wishes to conjure up three new, permanent magic items." That's a common extrapolation of the rules... but not everyone will play that way. Some DMs might limit you to items whose total gold piece value does not exceed the value of the ring itself. Others might require you to pay the additional XP cost yourself. Still others might limit you to the 25,000 gp cap on non-magic items. So you can't claim "no using rings to wish for magic items" to be Rules As Used, even if you yourself and everyone you know play that way.

[Wehrkind]

I think part of the problem with RAW in discussion is the distinction between permissive rules systems and [the opposite type whose name eludes me]. Since D&D covers such a broad range of possibilities, there is no possibility of writing rules for every occaision and action a player my do (ie. it can't be permissive only.) However, certain aspects are extremely permissive in nature, e.g. the spell system that states exactly what spells you are allowed to choose from and memorize.
The trick here comes in the form of "well, just because the rules don't say you can't shoot lasers from your eyes doesn't mean you can!" the obvious foil being "well, they also don't explicitely state that elves breath oxygen, so do they all die?" That is to say the rules are bolted onto the assumptive rules that comprise how those playing understand reality to work. This grey area between explicit things we are allowed to do, and explicit things we are not is what causes a lot of the wierd rule issues, as well as arguments, as we insert our own concepts of the rules of reality and general ideas of how the universe D&D is supposed to simulate works.

I think this is the general stab Saph is making about RAU and Rule 0. There is a necessary degree of interpretation and indeed guess work (rarely aknowledged as such) inherent. However I agree with the OP that it is important to make a distinction between the LETTER of the rules, and the SPIRIT (between RAW and RAU) when discussing things, as sometimes insights can be found that make seemingly unworkable RAW suddenly make sense.

[Droodle]

Exactly! That's the point I'm trying to make. Anyone with any kind of common sense takes RAU into account when they're giving build/RP/optimisation advice. So RAW and RAI aren't the only readings that people use. My real point, though, is that people who give inane advice like that in all likelihood really do that in their games.....or at least try to. Hence the need for RAW as a basis for discussions. Using RAU as a basis, nearly anything would go, since every possible (ab)use for every possible rule has probably been (ab)used by someone who thinks that said (ab)use is not only perfectly acceptable, but completely balanced. In a RAW discussion, inane (yet legal) suggestions are easily sidestepped by saying "yeah, it's RAW, but it's slso too game-breaking for me to use."

[Like a Lion]

You can't wish for magic items with a Ring of Wishes as per RAW, actually--the ring only has the base XP for three wishes (15k) as per the price. It'd need an extra store of XP to grant you items, since those cost XP.

[Piccamo]

You're making it out to be some sort of impossible paradox when it really isn't.

Look; if 95% of DMs won't allow something in a game, then it doesn't matter that much if the remaining 5% will. Whether you consider something "sane" may be subjective, but the fraction of DMs that will or won't allow it is not subjective - it's a hard number. So any useful discussion of the game has to take it into account, unless you want everything you say to only be relevant to 5% of the players.

In the case of the Arcane Genesis trick I mentioned above, it gives a PC infinite wealth as soon as they can use the spell, making the treasure system and WBL guidelines (and by extension, the CR system) redundant. At this point your game's split so far from normal D&D that any advice you give is going to be basically useless to anyone playing with finite wealth totals.

Playing D&D requires a certain minimum of common sense. There's no way around this. Trying to reduce the game to RAW-only with no common sense at all just ends up producing an unplayable mess.

- Saph
Who are you to say what 95% of DMs say in their campaigns? Have you done surveys asking all the other DMs who are posting in these threads? Do you believe that your grasp of common sense is the only one?

In your example you state something that you or I would consider to be ZOMG BROKEN!!!11! In the hands of a DM they might explain the source of wealth for a kingdom or the source of all precious metals within the earth. Even rules that would be game-breaking in the hands of the PCs may not be game-breaking in the hands of the DM.

The majority of things that seem to be against your "RAU" only happen at high levels. Game worlds are not populated by very many high-level people. Further, at these levels characters already do things that would defy common sense. If I were to tell you that I knew this guy who could turn into a huge being made entirely of fire 3 times per day you would probably look at me quite mad. It defies our normal perception of reality. That is what Fantasy is.

Your "RAU" is an attempt to restrict that fantasy. I'm sorry if my opinions on things does not mesh with yours. While we may agree on this use of Arcane Genesis, we may not agree on other "RAU".

You seem like a fairly intelligent person, please do not insult yourself or me with using a single example to try to prove your whole point when there are many others that disprove it just as easily. For all intents and purposes yours might be the exception that proves the rule.

[Saph]

Who are you to say what 95% of DMs say in their campaigns? Have you done surveys asking all the other DMs who are posting in these threads? Do you believe that your grasp of common sense is the only one?

Why do I need to have spoken to every single DM in the entire world to make a judgement about what they usually will or won't allow? You seem to have a problem with the whole concept of inductive reasoning.


In your example you state something that you or I would consider to be ZOMG BROKEN!!!11! In the hands of a DM they might explain the source of wealth for a kingdom or the source of all precious metals within the earth. Even rules that would be game-breaking in the hands of the PCs may not be game-breaking in the hands of the DM.

The majority of things that seem to be against your "RAU" only happen at high levels.

Okay then, if that's too high-level for you, what about Dausuul's example? By RAW, there's nothing saying that a dead character can't carry on walking around, fighting, casting spells, etc. So, technically, ruling that they can't is a houserule.

Think it's reasonable to assume that houserule? Or is that unacceptable, too?


You seem like a fairly intelligent person, please do not insult yourself or me with using a single example to try to prove your whole point when there are many others that disprove it just as easily. For all intents and purposes yours might be the exception that proves the rule.

Haven't really got a clue what you're talking about here. I'm saying that any kind of useful discussion of D&D has to take into account RAU, and that RAU can often be guessed pretty easily. It's not some kind of impossible-to-determine paradox.

- Saph

[Like a Lion]

...the RAW doesn't need to explicitly define every real-world term it uses. If it says "dead", it means dead--which involves the inability to take actions. It doesn't have to tell us "you can't take any actions when you're dead" anymore than it has to tell us "you can't have four functioning arms as a human".

[Wehrkind]

That's just the point though Saph, given the nature of RAW and RAU in D&D, we can only objectively agree on RAW as fact. RAU is subjective, and so while we can discuss what makes sense, and in fact should do so, what makes sense is NOT RAW, and thus can change for different people and still be the same game. RAW is what the game is, RAU is what manner we apply the game in. The point is that RAU is not universal to the game, and can not be guessed at. In fact, arriving at a proper RAU is generally the conclusion these arguments are searching for.
If you do wish to use a RAU as a premise in your argument, you should note it as such, and understand that (unlike RAW) any one can simply say "No, we don't play like that" and make part of your argument invalid. That is why RAW is more useful, since it is the Rules that define D&D, and thus if we are talking about it, they are assumed to be concrete and immutable for the purpose of the debate. If one wishes to propose a change to those rules, then they should point it out as such, and the validity of that change can then be debated.

[Piccamo]

Why do I need to have spoken to every single DM in the entire world to make a judgement about what they usually will or won't allow? You seem to have a problem with the whole concept of inductive reasoning.
Inductive reasoning is a process by which you make assumptions based on limited observation. It seems like what you are doing is making a weak induction. "I put a book on a shelf, therefore all books are on shelves."

Just because you don't like something does not make it wrong. I don't like grapefruits, but I don't think everyone who does is insane.



Okay then, if that's too high-level for you, what about Dausuul's example? By RAW, there's nothing saying that a dead character can't carry on walking around, fighting, casting spells, etc. So, technically, ruling that they can't is a houserule.

Think it's reasonable to assume that houserule? Or is that unacceptable, too?

I think you are going out of your way to prove a point that doesn't really exist. 9th level spell effects are not comparable to a poorly written description of a condition.

I would agree that your death "houserule" is favorable, but I would disagree that every person should be forced to play with it. I'm not the king of DnD.

[Matthew]

...the RAW doesn't need to explicitly define every real-world term it uses. If it says "dead", it means dead--which involves the inability to take actions. It doesn't have to tell us "you can't take any actions when you're dead" anymore than it has to tell us "you can't have four functioning arms as a human".
If only that was true. Just take a look at the discussion on Prone, Levitating whilst Prone and definitions of the 'ground' to see the problems created by defined and undefined RAW terms. For the rules to function they often require interpretation and common agreement on terminology, especially when dealing with otherwise unlegislated actions or events.

The RAW covers many things adequettely, but it cannot legislate for everything. Even so, it is important to be clear about the difference between what the rules say and what they are interpreted to mean.

[Saph]

That's just the point though Saph, given the nature of RAW and RAU in D&D, we can only objectively agree on RAW as fact.

Actually, we can't even do that. There are plenty of cases where the rules as written are ambiguous.


RAU is subjective, and so while we can discuss what makes sense, and in fact should do so, what makes sense is NOT RAW, and thus can change for different people and still be the same game. RAW is what the game is, RAU is what manner we apply the game in. The point is that RAU is not universal to the game, and can not be guessed at.

It CAN be guessed at. It is NOT that difficult. You do not need to be some kind of psychic to figure out that in the majority of games, a Pun-Pun build will not be allowed. (Possible at level 1, AFAIK.) I have to admit that it annoys me a bit when people try to tell me that it's impossible for me to guess RAU. I've done it, for multiple groups and multiple games. It's not impossible. Of course it's a guess and it isn't going to be 100% certain, but nothing in life is.

RAW is a good starting point, but it is NOT enough to base a game on, and assuming that game-breaking things will be allowed because they're RAW-legal is, in the majority of games, simply wrong.

- Saph

[Saph]

Inductive reasoning is a process by which you make assumptions based on limited observation. It seems like what you are doing is making a weak induction. "I put a book on a shelf, therefore all books are on shelves."

Just because you don't like something does not make it wrong.

It's nothing to do with what I like, nor is it a weak induction. I'll go through it step by step.

Evidence 1: All D&D DMs I've played with will not allow infinite wealth for a 18th level character.
Evidence 2: The vast majority of D&D DMs I've spoken to, met with, or heard about will not allow infinite wealth for an 18th level character.
Evidence 3: I have no reason to believe that these DMs are unrepresentative, and several reasons to believe that they are representative (good sample, large number, etc.)
Evidence 4: Arcane Genesis, used as RAW, allows an 18th level character to gain infinite wealth.

Conclusion: It is probable that any given DM will not allow Arcane Genesis to be used as RAW.

Now, which part of that reasoning do you find invalid?

- Saph

[Wehrkind]

Actually, we can't even do that. There are plenty of cases where the rules as written are ambiguous.

It CAN be guessed at. It is NOT that difficult. You do not need to be some kind of psychic to figure out that in the majority of games, a Pun-Pun build will not be allowed. (Possible at level 1, AFAIK.) I have to admit that it annoys me a bit when people try to tell me that it's impossible for me to guess RAU. I've done it, for multiple groups and multiple games. It's not impossible. Of course it's a guess and it isn't going to be 100% certain, but nothing in life is.

RAW is a good starting point, but it is NOT enough to base a game on, and assuming that game-breaking things will be allowed because they're RAW-legal is, in the majority of games, simply wrong.

- Saph

You can not ALWAYS take RAW by the letter, because as you say there are ambiguous rules and such. However, it is still the only thing that you can sometimes take as absolute.
I think the problem people have with your argument is that you seem to be equating RAW and RAU in terms of function in an argument. However, objective things like RAW that we can go and look up when needed have more priority than subjective ideas that are RAU. The idea is to improve our sense of what RAU, from the basis of RAW.
The trouble with using RAU as a universal basis of understand is that it is not universal. So while it is reasonable to say "Ok, we all agree that Pun-Pun is not the answer to 'Optimize this Build', correct? Ok based on that..." or something similar it is not a good idea to take such assumptions as given, particularly if RAW directly says they are ok.
The rules ARE D&D, and ARE what the game is based on. The trouble is the rules require and assume a grasp on reality to fill in their gaps. However, that does not mean that one's grasp on reality can be taken as a given in a conversation about the rules. Only the rules can be taken as a given, which is to say RAW.

[Wehrkind]

It's nothing to do with what I like, nor is it a weak induction. I'll go through it step by step.

Evidence 1: All D&D DMs I've played with will not allow infinite wealth for a 18th level character.
Evidence 2: The vast majority of D&D DMs I've spoken to, met with, or heard about will not allow infinite wealth for an 18th level character.
Evidence 3: I have no reason to believe that these DMs are unrepresentative, and several reasons to believe that they are representative (good sample, large number, etc.)
Evidence 4: Arcane Genesis, used as RAW, allows an 18th level character to gain infinite wealth.

Conclusion: It is probable that any given DM will not allow Arcane Genesis to be used as RAW.

Now, which part of that reasoning do you find invalid?

- Saph

No part of the reasoning is invalid (though your sample size I find questionable). However, the fact that the best conclusion you can come up with is only "probable" makes it weak, based on your sample size, and the simple fact that there might be a DM out there who uses it as RAW because he found the RAW way to avoid infinite wealth, or a RAU way. If we were talking about ways to use the spell by RAW to avoid infinite wealth (a undesirable result) we are looking for a set of RAU to fix the issue. Inserting "Well, just don't let it do that" is a possible solution RAU, but NOT a premise to start from.

[Piccamo]

Saph,
I will end my debate with you as it is clear you are not going to be swayed here or now. The only thing I have left to say is that I cannot say with every degree of certainty that there is no rhinoceros in this room.

[Dausuul]

You can not ALWAYS take RAW by the letter, because as you say there are ambiguous rules and such. However, it is still the only thing that you can sometimes take as absolute.

Either you can take RAW as absolute or you can't--there's no "sometimes." That's like saying an object is "somewhat unique." Absolute is a yes/no. It is or it isn't.

The advantage to RAW is not that it can be taken as absolute, but that it is a common reference point that everyone can work from. Saph is suggesting that there are certain houserules that are so common that they also provide a workable reference point. (Most of these houserules are along the lines of "such-and-such horribly abusive exploit is not allowed." Pun-Pun is the classic case.)


I think the problem people have with your argument is that you seem to be equating RAW and RAU in terms of function in an argument. However, objective things like RAW that we can go and look up when needed have more priority than subjective ideas that are RAU. The idea is to improve our sense of what RAU, from the basis of RAW.
The trouble with using RAU as a universal basis of understand is that it is not universal. So while it is reasonable to say "Ok, we all agree that Pun-Pun is not the answer to 'Optimize this Build', correct? Ok based on that..." or something similar it is not a good idea to take such assumptions as given, particularly if RAW directly says they are ok.

The thing is that if we had to enumerate all those RAU assumptions, we'd never get anything said. I'm certainly not going to start off every post I make in an optimization thread by saying, "Well, assuming Pun-Pun isn't allowed, or Infinite Titans, or this exploit, or that exploit, or..." Obviously Pun-Pun and Infinite Titans aren't allowed. That's a given.

There is certainly a grey area between RAU and "popular house rule." At the same time, there's also stuff that is clearly RAU and that should not have to be explicitly stated.


The rules ARE D&D, and ARE what the game is based on. The trouble is the rules require and assume a grasp on reality to fill in their gaps. However, that does not mean that one's grasp on reality can be taken as a given in a conversation about the rules. Only the rules can be taken as a given, which is to say RAW.

All conversation involves unspoken assumptions. You can't get away from that, not even by standing on the RAW. You can only do your best to limit your assumptions to ones you're pretty sure are shared by the people you're talking to, and try to clear up the confusion that results when one of your assumptions proves not to be shared.

The rules do not say that dead people have to lie down and not move. Since D&D often defines its terms in ways that do not agree with how those terms are used in real life (e.g., lying on your back is "prone" in D&D but not in real life), one cannot simply assume that the real-life definition of any given word will carry over.

But everybody knows that death in D&D means you lie down and stop moving, and it would be idiotic to expect everyone to preface their remarks on combat with "Assuming death means you can't keep fighting..." That's where Rules As Used comes in--although I have to say that I'm not entirely clear on the distinction between Rules As Used and Rules As Intended, since it was certainly the intention of the designers that death should make you stop moving.

[Diggorian]

Arent Rules As Interpreted and Used essentially the same thing? RAI=RAU?

RAW when read are interpreted then used based on how they were interpreted, right?

[Jack Mann]

Giacomo, the point is that, while these situations might be implied by the RAW, they are not actually part of the RAW.

Saph, "RAU" is more than adequately covered under RAI and house rules. Some houserules are very common, and might even be near-universal, but you can't be sure everyone uses or even knows about that particular house rule. This is why we start with the RAW, and then move from there to what we think is reasonable.

Daus, I think you're misinterpreting what Wehrkind means. He isn't saying that the RAW is sometimes an absolute, but that sometimes, it's the only thing that can be taken as an absolute. That is, while the RAW is always absolute (we're all using the same rulebooks as our basis), it isn't always the only absolute. For example, if you're in the same game as another person, then the houserules of that game can be taken as an absolute. But this wouldn't be the case if you were discussing rules with someone from another game.

Digg, I would say that Rules as Interpreted and Rules as Used are both part of house rules. Rules as Intended is more a guide for making these house rules.

EDIT: Gah, you edited, Digg!

[Yechezkiel]

Arent Rules As Interpreted and Used essentially the same thing? RAI=RAU?

RAW when read are interpreted then used based on how they were interpreted, right?

Sshhhh... fundamentalists and liberals are fighting.

[Emperor Tippy]

Saph, I allow it.

Why? Because my players face maybe 1 combat encounter per level at levels 17+. The players still have to mine the gold, which takes a good long while.

The CR system and most of combat brakes down almost entirely at levels 15+. So what do I do, move on to that thing called roleplay and have numerous quests and missions that the PC's wealth and combat prowess only partially help.

And the other opponents of the same level get the same resources.


RAW is the rules as written. It should be the basis for every answer you give someone (unless they ask specifically for houserules).

The RAI is the rules as they were most likely intended. This should be included as a caveat on RAW statements.

For example:

"When dead you don't actually have to lay down and stop taking actions. X, Y, and Z are all the mechanical effects of being dead.

Now thsi is most likely an oversight and the rules were most likely intended to say that you can't take actions when dead."

RAU should be included after prepositional phrases such as: In my games we, A good houserule is, I use it like, etc.

[Deepblue706]

A+, Jack Mann.

Also, I like the owl.

[Draz74]

If RAU is going to forbid this abuse of Arcane Genesis, then no one is going to be seriously suggest using it as a tactic.

If only that were true. Unfortunately, I have seen plenty of posts on these Forums involving violations of the RAU. Candles of Invocation to start the Titan loop at low levels. Even Pun-Pun has been advocated.

I can see the value in having everything based strictly on the RAW and their non-subjective commonality. That would be great for having clear, concise discussions on these boards.

Unfortunately, since people don't stop making ridiculous suggestions based on the RAW, I have to side with Saph and say that productive discussions on these boards will only result if we assume some RAU and save enormous amounts of time based on them.

And Tippy, I don't want to have to precede a lot of my posts with, "Well, in my game ..." so I can avoid the dumber parts of the RAW, like Monks being proficient with Unarmed Strike in any discussion of Monks. Waste of time! So I think the Forums would be more productive with some RAU assumed, even if some of them actually are disagreed with by a small minority of DM's out there, like you and your campaigns with (arcane) Genesis wealth loops allowed. Discussing the game in a way that doesn't apply to your campaign is unfortunate, but to me, it seems like it will save more time than the problems it will cause.

[LotharBot]

RAW is the rules as written. It should be the basis for every answer you give someone (unless they ask specifically for houserules).

Why is it better to give a RAW answer to a question where a RAI answer would be more enlightening to the person asking? Why is it better to default to RAW than to something else? You've stated in numerous threads that RAW "should be" the default, but you also acknowledge that RAW answers often don't actually answer the question at hand and that your purpose in giving them is to show that RAW is broken. To me, that suggests defaulting to RAW 100% of the time is not the best way to answer questions.

IMO, we shouldn't default to RAW or to RAI, and we shouldn't assume the person asking will understand that we're talking RAW or RAI. Instead, we should simply be explicit -- when we answer RAW we should say "according to RAW", and when we answer RAI we should say "the rules seem intended to allow", and when we answer houserules we should say "[ I / most DMs I've talked to] allow this but not that, because that is horribly broken."

The problem with assuming anything different is that we have this same discussion pop up a couple times a week, because we're not all assuming the same thing. We have the same group of people saying "we have to answer RAW and RAW alone", and the same group of people saying "we have to answer RAI", and the same group of people saying "houserules are a perfectly valid answer", and in the mean time the person who asked the question is left wondering why he can't get an answer.

Let's forget about telling the other groups they should do things our way, and just be explicit about how we're formulating our own answers. If you answer RAW, say so. If you answer RAI, say so. If you answer houserules, say so. If you're not sure and you're just giving your best guess / recollection / opinion, say so.

[Deepblue706]

I think some of you guys are missing the point.

RAW is the only thing that can be universally assumed if you're going about presenting a logical argument.

If a RAI answer might be better than a RAW one, that doesn't diminish the importance of what stands on RAW. Any variation on RAW must be clearly stated for it to be fully understood by all parties that may partake.

Just because we don't like an idea in RAW doesn't erase it from (or rewrite it in) the countless books that are sold.

This is the only way to maintain coherence.

[Jasdoif]

I believe RAW is generally useful for three things:
Helping ensure we all know what the heck we're talking about
Letting players know what works if there's no DM decision that alters the RAW involved
Letting DMs know what RAW issues should be considered for house ruling

Those first two I believe have been very well established in this thread already. That last one, though, is important too.

Suppose a DM decides that candle of invocation needs to have the calling ability removed, because they believe it's too dang powerful. Is it better for them to make that decision after reading "it works by RAW" in a forum post, or to make it after a player's attempted to use it; leaving the DM to either live with it, deal with its effects or remove it retroactively?

You can't try to fix it unless you know it's broken. Whether someone else thinks it isn't broken, is too dumb to even consider happening in a game, etc., is irrelevant to your game; you're the one DMing. That's where "it works by RAW" comes in. Without it, a DM would need to encounter and decide on each of these situations mid-game, and it's a lot easier on the players to restrict something from the get-go then to restrict it in the middle of the game as they're trying to use it.

[Emperor Tippy]

And Tippy, I don't want to have to precede a lot of my posts with, "Well, in my game ..." so I can avoid the dumber parts of the RAW, like Monks being proficient with Unarmed Strike in any discussion of Monks. Waste of time! So I think the Forums would be more productive with some RAU assumed, even if some of them actually are disagreed with by a small minority of DM's out there, like you and your campaigns with (arcane) Genesis wealth loops allowed. Discussing the game in a way that doesn't apply to your campaign is unfortunate, but to me, it seems like it will save more time than the problems it will cause.

Sure, the forums would be more productive if some RAU was assumed. But RAU are houserules. They differ between games and DM's. I even change them from game to game in my games.

I know many, many people who use stuff in multiple ways depending on the specific game.

RAU can not be assumed.


Why is it better to give a RAW answer to a question where a RAI answer would be more enlightening to the person asking? Why is it better to default to RAW than to something else? You've stated in numerous threads that RAW "should be" the default, but you also acknowledge that RAW answers often don't actually answer the question at hand and that your purpose in giving them is to show that RAW is broken. To me, that suggests defaulting to RAW 100% of the time is not the best way to answer questions.

The RAW sucks. They are broken and nigh worthless. I have gone through before and added or removed words from about 90% of the published spells to remove most of the D&D magic brokenness. My fixes created spells that were most likely how they were intended to be.

I can't assume that anyoen else uses a single one of these fixes. Even if they are RAI.

RAW is used as the foundation and should be defaulted to because it is what everyone knows.


IMO, we shouldn't default to RAW or to RAI, and we shouldn't assume the person asking will understand that we're talking RAW or RAI. Instead, we should simply be explicit -- when we answer RAW we should say "according to RAW", and when we answer RAI we should say "the rules seem intended to allow", and when we answer houserules we should say "[ I / most DMs I've talked to] allow this but not that, because that is horribly broken."

I almost always preface all my rules statements with one of those.


The problem with assuming anything different is that we have this same discussion pop up a couple times a week, because we're not all assuming the same thing. We have the same group of people saying "we have to answer RAW and RAW alone", and the same group of people saying "we have to answer RAI", and the same group of people saying "houserules are a perfectly valid answer", and in the mean time the person who asked the question is left wondering why he can't get an answer.

Let's forget about telling the other groups they should do things our way, and just be explicit about how we're formulating our own answers. If you answer RAW, say so. If you answer RAI, say so. If you answer houserules, say so. If you're not sure and you're just giving your best guess / recollection / opinion, say so.

The real problem is that many people won't acknowledge that what they say is a houserule. They say that the RAW says X.

And other people almost always respond with houseruels, even when the OP wants a simple RAW answer.

[Damionte]

Why is it better to give a RAW answer to a question where a RAI answer would be more enlightening to the person asking? Why is it better to default to RAW than to something else? You've stated in numerous threads that RAW "should be" the default, but you also acknowledge that RAW answers often don't actually answer the question at hand and that your purpose in giving them is to show that RAW is broken. To me, that suggests defaulting to RAW 100% of the time is not the best way to answer questions.


I agree. I feel we get more done and service the community better when we try to answer questions in a way that would be more useful the person asking the question. though at the same time I understand the entertainment value that some get from bashing about the same old points, since as has been said, geeks like to argue.

a couple of good recent examples of when the RAW works or doesn't for asnwering a question.

The recent thread where that brand new GM was asking for help dealing with his lvl 4 party who had 30+ AC's. That was clearly a case where RAW was the helpful answer. This was a person who's lack of knowledge of the RAW was hindering his game and thier enjoyment of it.

Compared to the Outsiders gaining Martial weapon Proficiency thread. Where the OP opened with essentially, "This seems horribly borken would anyone else ban this." Which devolved into a lecture on hwo it's RAW and should work as written.

I feel that one of the main problems we face when dealing with RAW is when we don't even agree on what the RAW is.

[Like a Lion]

Compared to the Outsiders gaining Martial weapon Proficiency thread. Where the OP opened with essentially, "This seems horribly borken would anyone else ban this." Which devolved into a lecture on hwo it's RAW and should work as written.

I feel that one of the main problems we face when dealing with RAW is when we don't even agree on what the RAW is.

Uh, no. There were two arguments: one was about whether it *really did* grant you the proficiencies by RAW. The other was about whether it was broken. They were both important.

[Damionte]

Also to answer an earlier question newer source does trump except when it comes to primary source.

Nothing trumps Primary source. Essentially the first time a basic rule comes up, unless otherwise stated in the newer text.

For instance the players handbook has the rules on combat and character creation. it is the primary source for such things. So anyhting else that has rules on combat and character creation follows the same guidlines as in the playes handbook unless it specifically says it does not. If it's tryin gto say the same thing but somehow words it differently the wording in the PHB trumps.

For instance the errata is specifically meant to be a re-write on things in the PHB and thus trumps what's written in the PHB.

If you want the full discription you can download an errata sheet from the WOTC site. it has the text which explains this concept.

[Jack Mann]

Compared to the Outsiders gaining Martial weapon Proficiency thread. Where the OP opened with essentially, "This seems horribly borken would anyone else ban this." Which devolved into a lecture on hwo it's RAW and should work as written.

Well, the problem here was that someone (not pointing any fingers), said that it didn't work that way. The way he phrased it implied that the RAW didn't allow it. This person, going unnamed, was wrong, either because he had misphrased what he was saying (intending to say, "I wouldn't allow it") or because he didn't understand the rules. It was because of him that the RAW was dragged into the discussion.

[Damionte]

Uh, no. There were two arguments: one was about whether it *really did* grant you the proficiencies by RAW. The other was about whether it was broken. They were both important.

That was kinda the point of the part you qouted.

The discussion in this thread I believe is about clarity.

For instance in the Outsiders thread it took a while for us to get to the point where everyone understood there were 2 distinct arguments going on. The two arguments were mingling in the thread which was causing part of the problem. Hell it's most of the problem really. I suppose it's one of the limits of this medium. It's not always clear who and what you're responding to. Even when using quotes.

EDIT:

Just in case the unnamed is me. It was a non raw discussion. It's not my fault if the folks coming in after the fact didn'ty always take on that intent. It was also a point of contention mentioned in this thread that the RAW could also not be agreed apun.

I believe that RAI has something to do with how RAW are interpreted. Especially in a thread where we're trying to come up with the RAI and not simply quoting what the RAW are.

[Emperor Tippy]

Again, Damionte, it was a case of a certain unnamed individual saying that the feat didn't, by RAW, work that way. It did. That person would not acknowledge that the feat actually did work that way by RAW.

If the person had said "I use it like XXX because otherwise it is broken" the debate never would have come up.

This is what I was getting at before, people need to acknowledge houserules.

[Indon]

"Rules As Any Sane Or Moderately Intelligent Person With Even An Ounce Of Foresight Would Use Them" is generally as useful or more useful than RAW. It's worth paying attention to both of them.


How is this different than RAI?

Rules as Intended is taken by applying common sense to the rules in order to get what is supposed to be there. Since we assume Wizards of the Coast isn't trying to make a bad game, then Rules as Intended are biased towards making sense and not rendering a D&D game to be lower quality.


I do have a question, though. How do you describe rules that aren't written down at all?

To use an example in the original post: What are the criteria for a Druid to be able to Wild Shape into an animal?

Does this fall under RAI, or do we have another category for it (Rules as Fill-in)?

[Like a Lion]

It's different from Rules As Intended, because something can be not intended by the authors but still be something any sane person would accept, or intended by the authors but *not* something any sane person would accept (the Mad Monk publishes a D&D book, say).

[Damionte]

We've gone full circle now and now have a case example of the argument in this thread.

What use does the pure RAW have in this kind of case. This is the same as the you don't have to lie down and stop moving when dead argument. The argument you guys made to refute my RAW interpretation was that it doesn't explicibly say you can't do that. while my argument was that it also doesn't explicibly say you can & it makes no logical sense for you to be able to do so.

Many of you in the thread go on about how this is RAW but I wouldn't use it that way. "Assuming we can agree that it's RAW that way" why even bother with that judgement. In the end many are not going to do it that way. In the same manner that folks generally lay down and stop moving when they die.

I suppose like in the Battle For Gobwin Knob I end up winning by losing.

EDIT: Man I've only been on these boards a couple weeks and I can already tell that Tippy and I are rarely going to agree on anything; simply form the way we aproach answering questions. He's almost always coming form the point of "This is another example of how broken the RAW is." While I am usually going to be going, "This is probably broken. How should we rule it. here's how I'd rule it." I see a lot of long arguments in our future.

[Jasdoif]

I do have a question, though. How do you describe rules that aren't written down at all?

To use an example in the original post: What are the criteria for a Druid to be able to Wild Shape into an animal?

Does this fall under RAI, or do we have another category for it (Rules as Fill-in)?Not being written, they are by definition not RAW. It'd be a big stretch to call them RAI either, because how can it be "rules as intended" if there aren't any rules present to intent with?

Any attempt to enforce these things will require house rules. So this is house rule territory.

[Jack Mann]

How is this different than RAI?

Rules as Intended is taken by applying common sense to the rules in order to get what is supposed to be there. Since we assume Wizards of the Coast isn't trying to make a bad game, then Rules as Intended are biased towards making sense and not rendering a D&D game to be lower quality.


I do have a question, though. How do you describe rules that aren't written down at all?

To use an example in the original post: What are the criteria for a Druid to be able to Wild Shape into an animal?

Does this fall under RAI, or do we have another category for it (Rules as Fill-in)?

That would be a house rule, no matter how you rule it. As I said, there are times when you have to interpret the rules to some extent. Since no rules were provided, each DM has to come up with the standard they're going to use, from "eh, you've got ranks in knowledge (nature), so you probably familiar with most animals" to "you need to spend some time studying the creature carefully before you can change into it."

[Saph]

How is this different than RAI?

Well, they're different things. One is how the writer of a rulebook intended things then, one is how the people who use the rulebook play things now.

In practice, though, anyone who pays attention to one usually pays attention to the other anyway.


I do have a question, though. How do you describe rules that aren't written down at all? To use an example in the original post: What are the criteria for a Druid to be able to Wild Shape into an animal?

Rules as Used, I guess, since they're not written and it's hard to figure out how they were intended - so all that really matters is how people play it.

- Saph

[Indon]

It's different from Rules As Intended, because something can be not intended by the authors but still be something any sane person would accept, or intended by the authors but *not* something any sane person would accept (the Mad Monk publishes a D&D book, say).

But, assuming Rasputin is not still alive and writing for Wizards of the Coast, and that unless something _is_ outrageous we wouldn't know it's not intended, there seems to be no distinction.

[Dausuul]

*stops arguing and goes back to meditate on the original post for a bit*

Okay.

In general, I agree with the first post in this thread... except: I do not agree that in cases of conflict between RAW, RAI, and RAU, it is sufficient to rely on "is" meaning RAW and "should" meaning RAI and "generally is played as" meaning RAU. Any time you make a statement that is likely to conflict with how most people play the game, you should specify where it's coming from.

"What are the criteria for druids to be able to wild shape into an animal?"
"Well, the only rule given is that you have to be 'familiar' with it. If you want to get really technical, the only definition of 'familiar' given in the RAW is that for sorcerors and wizards, so you'd have to multi-class... but the obvious intent is that you have to know something about the animal you want to turn into. How much? Well, that's open to interpretation. In my campaign, we interpret it as X."

[Ramza00]

How is this different than RAI?

Rules as Intended is taken by applying common sense to the rules in order to get what is supposed to be there. Since we assume Wizards of the Coast isn't trying to make a bad game, then Rules as Intended are biased towards making sense and not rendering a D&D game to be lower quality.


I do have a question, though. How do you describe rules that aren't written down at all?

To use an example in the original post: What are the criteria for a Druid to be able to Wild Shape into an animal?

Does this fall under RAI, or do we have another category for it (Rules as Fill-in)?
You are making an assumption, you are assuming that WOTC wants a balanced game, after seeing the Planar Shepard, I don't know if we can make that assumption anymore.

Thus its probably better to separate the two.

[Emperor Tippy]

We've gone full circle now and now have a case example of the argument in this thread.

What use does the pure RAW have in this kind of case. This is the same as the you don't have to lie down and stop moving when dead argument. The argument you guys made to refute my RAW interpretation was that it doesn't explicibly say you can't do that. while my argument was that it also doesn't explicibly say you can & it makes no logical sense for you to be able to do so.

No. Dead is defined in D&D. It is a condition. It has various effects. The dictionary definition doesn't matter at all.

The otherworldly argument is similarly clear. The feat says you gain the outsider type. That is as clear as can be. The outsider type gives you some benefits, again as clear as can be.

The chain of important goes: The definition given by wotc. The dictionary definition. The common use definition.


Many of you in the thread go on about how this is RAW but I wouldn't use it that way. "Assuming we can agree that it's RAW that way" why even bother with that judgement. In the end many are not going to do it that way. In the same manner that folks generally lay down and stop moving when they die.

See, what is with the assumptions. I will argue that something is RAW even if I personally don't allow it or change it. My stating something is rules legal is different from whether or not I would allow it, would use it, or think its broken or not.

I will argue any side of any debate with enough passion to make whoever I am arguing with think that it is what I personally believe. It isn't fairly often.


I suppose like in the Battle For Gobwin Knob I end up winning by losing.

Not really.


EDIT: Man I've only been on these boards a couple weeks and I can already tell that Tippy and I are rarely going to agree on anything; simply form the way we aproach answering questions. He's almost always coming form the point of "This is another example of how broken the RAW is." While I am usually going to be going, "This is probably broken. How should we rule it. here's how I'd rule it." I see a lot of long arguments in our future.

Meh. It won't be the first time.

[Dausuul]

No. Dead is defined in D&D. It is a condition. It has various effects. The dictionary definition doesn't matter at all.

Yes and no.

The dictionary definition doesn't matter as far as RAW is concerned. It does matter as far as RAI and actual play are concerned, because this is a case where the RAW is clearly missing something, and the reason we know what it's missing is that we know what "dead" means in the dictionary. While the "dead man walking" case is an amusing example of a technical hole in the rules, it has no applicability to anybody's actual campaign.

Suppose I ask "Hey, what happens to my character when he dies?" A useful answer would be something like "In the standard cosmology, your soul goes to one of the outer planes, depending on your alignment, and becomes a petitioner there. You'll eventually merge with the plane or get promoted to an outsider, unless somebody resurrects you."

A non-useful answer would be, "You can keep doing whatever you want, you don't fall down or stop moving or anything."

Both answers are RAW (I think; the first might actually be RAI, I haven't made a careful study of the rules on the afterlife). Both are relevant to the question and both, if correct in a given campaign, would be valuable information to have.

But while one can reasonably assume the first answer is correct unless the DM has gone out of her way to house-rule otherwise, one cannot make the same assumption about the second answer. Most DMs don't bother laying down an explicit house-rule on dead men walking. The house-rule is there but unstated, because it doesn't have to be stated.

[Callix]

On the Dead Man Walking (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#dead) debate, the line "the soul departs the body" may indicate that even if the character is not obliged to stop taking actions, particularly if not unconscious, the actions may not be under the control of the character's will, being the player in the case of the PCs. This allows an impromptu decapitee to stumble around for a few seconds in a horror/war setting, but doesn't allow for post-death spell nuking. But this is probably RAI. It's had the insane loopholes taken out of it. Now only the sane loopholes are left.

[Diggorian]

Let's forget about telling the other groups they should do things our way, and just be explicit about how we're formulating our own answers. If you answer RAW, say so. If you answer RAI, say so. If you answer houserules, say so. If you're not sure and you're just giving your best guess / recollection / opinion, say so.

Isnt this agreeable to most folks on this thread? Cant we rally around this?

Geeks do like to argue, but doesnt arguing without good reason cross us into ... dork territory?

[Brother_Franklin]

To percieve the rules is to interpret the rules.

Meaning is use.

This all really comes down to Wittenstien.

But anyway, adding more acronyms is not going to help.

If someone asks you if Monks have proficency with their fists. You say yes.

The primary reason some newb comes to a board like this and asks that level question is beause the RAW has already failed them. They don't need to see-

RAW:no
RAI:yes
RAU: yes

[greenknight]

One thing I think needs adding, though: a third category, RAU. As well as RAW and RAI, you also need Read As Used. This is less solid than Read As Written, but more solid than Read As Intended.

I think you've missed a very important point here Saph:


Letting DMs know what RAW issues should be considered for house ruling[/list]

You can't try to fix it unless you know it's broken.

That's a pretty eloquent summary of the situation. Ideally, RAW should always equal what you call RAU, but we all know it doesn't. Many discussions of the RAW revolve around identifying problems, and proposing fixes. I notice that many different people propose many different fixes, which is where your definition of RAU breaks down. Even if the vast majority of DMs agree there's a problem, they probably don't all agree on the same solution. So the best fix is to highlight the problem and try to get WotC to release errata which solves it in a consistant way. The second best option would be to make other DMs aware of the potential issue and propose a solution (or a range of solutions) which should fix it.


Man I've only been on these boards a couple weeks and I can already tell that Tippy and I are rarely going to agree on anything; simply form the way we aproach answering questions.

You may be right, but I should mention that you're both doing essentially the same thing. You're both identifying problems with the RAW, and in many cases suggesting how those problems can be fixed.

[brian c]

Also to answer an earlier question newer source does trump except when it comes to primary source.

Nothing trumps Primary source. Essentially the first time a basic rule comes up, unless otherwise stated in the newer text.

For instance the players handbook has the rules on combat and character creation. it is the primary source for such things. So anyhting else that has rules on combat and character creation follows the same guidlines as in the playes handbook unless it specifically says it does not. If it's tryin gto say the same thing but somehow words it differently the wording in the PHB trumps.

For instance the errata is specifically meant to be a re-write on things in the PHB and thus trumps what's written in the PHB.

If you want the full discription you can download an errata sheet from the WOTC site. it has the text which explains this concept.

Ehh... when you say "nothing trumps Primary source", by which I assume you mean Core, that's only true when referring to general game rules such as conditions, combat rules, character creation, etc. However, if Complete Warrior had the feat Great Cleave with a different usage from the PHB version of Great Cleave, then the Complete Warrior version is the "official" one. I can't think of any examples of this, but there probably are. However, they should (and I think almost invariably do) explicitly state that something is overruling/replacing a previous version. One example is how there's a clarification of the Incorporeal subtype in Tome of Battle, which explicitly states that this is the new rules text for the Incorporeal subtype and overrides any previous rules text for the Incorporeal subtype.

[Emperor Tippy]

Ehh... when you say "nothing trumps Primary source", by which I assume you mean Core, that's only true when referring to general game rules such as conditions, combat rules, character creation, etc. However, if Complete Warrior had the feat Great Cleave with a different usage from the PHB version of Great Cleave, then the Complete Warrior version is the "official" one. I can't think of any examples of this, but there probably are. However, they should (and I think almost invariably do) explicitly state that something is overruling/replacing a previous version. One example is how there's a clarification of the Incorporeal subtype in Tome of Battle, which explicitly states that this is the new rules text for the Incorporeal subtype and overrides any previous rules text for the Incorporeal subtype.

Spell Compendium does it with spells. It redoes numerous spells.

[brian c]

Spell Compendium does it with spells. It redoes numerous spells.

Ah, okay. I knew there must be some sort of example, but I usually prefer melee characters, and I've only glanced at the Spell Compendium.

[CASTLEMIKE]

The RAW is the RAI - Rules as Written and Intended by Wizard's Gaming Professionals for DMs and Players to have FUN.

Professionals who have a product to sell and Occassionally and Purposefully IMO slip a few Game Straining Rule Gemstones, Feats, PRCs and Oversights into game play for customers who are familiar with the rules and mechanics of the game and wish to optimize their PC. This is understandable it is their business. Consistently year after year source book after source book it continues because we tend to forget that the PLAYER customers outnumber the DM customers marketshare wise and purchase more product.

Almost every player does this to some degree unless you routinely play a 63 point build commoner which comprises 90% of the populace and places a burden on your team you are optimizing your PC.

Some of these RAW RAI Gemstones can strain normal campaign play. They may be legally be utilized in games however most DM would not have much Fun or Enjoy the burden these Gemstones would place on his or her campaign world. So Wizard's formally left him or her an out Rule 0. The DM may Veto any Rule or Source book he wishes.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

[Dan_Hemmens]

The problem with this distinction (RAW vs RAI vs RAU vs whatever) is that for many people the subjective elements of the game are part of the system.

Clerics, for example, actually *are* supposed to be balanced somewhat by the roleplaying restrictions, they're part of the system just as much as their proficiencies.

[Matthew]

That's very true. However, the SRD has created the appearance of many 'fluff' aspects of the game being divorced from the mechanics. It's an (unanimated) skeleton without musculature.

[Jack Mann]

The other problem is that they do not enumerate what these restrictions might be. They don't give a code of conduct for clerics. They don't give the strictures for various churches. Because of this, the way these are dealt with will be different from game to game. You can't say, "Well, clerics of Pelor can't coup de grace their" as a general rule. Nothing in the text says that. It might make sense to you as a DM, but not everyone will use, or even have thought of that.

I agree that RAU is a useless term. While there are some problems that nearly all DMs try to fix, there are virtually no universal solutions.

RAI is useful only as a guideline, a method to look for fixes by looking at what the creators meant to do with the mechanics, where they screwed up, and fixing that. Even then, you might not agree with their intent, and may go with something else entirely.

In the end, there's only the RAW and house rules. House rules are useful, often necessary. But because they will be different between each group, they cannot be assumed.

[Indon]

In the end, there's only the RAW and house rules. House rules are useful, often necessary. But because they will be different between each group, they cannot be assumed.

And the thing is, if you don't discuss houserules on an equal footing (and in some extreme cases, as superior) to the RAW, you're often unable to discuss D&D to any significant (let alone useful) extent.

The number of players who play RAW-only games is pretty small, and the variety of houserules is immense. So unless a thread specifies that it is not discussing houserules (and is thus purely RAW/RAI), inclusion of houserules should be expected.

[Matthew]

Sure, but I don't think JackMann is saying "don't do it", he's saying "be clear when you are doing it".

[Indon]

Sure, but I don't think JackMann is saying "don't do it", he's saying "be clear when you are doing it".

After a review of the original post, I find myself agreeing with you.