(Written) Instructions on how to read the rules? Do they exist?

[PhoenixPhyre]

For my own edification, I'm interested in official printed statements about how the rules are intended to be read. I've looked in the SRD and haven't found any--do they exist in the print editions? The sort of thing I'm looking for is any guidance on defined terms, what to do in case of ambiguity, whether to read literally or using natural language, etc. I prefer statements in the official books, but anything by the developers would help.

This applies to both 3.5 and pathfinder.

[Necroticplague]

For my own edification, I'm interested in official printed statements about how the rules are intended to be read. I've looked in the SRD and haven't found any--do they exist in the print editions? The sort of thing I'm looking for is any guidance on defined terms, what to do in case of ambiguity, whether to read literally or using natural language, etc. I prefer statements in the official books, but anything by the developers would help.

This applies to both 3.5 and pathfinder.

Well, there's the Glossary for defining terms. Most complete version of it is online.

[Bakkan]

The errata files have a section at the beginning that talks about how to reconcile contradictory rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, there's the Glossary for defining terms. Most complete version of it is online.


The errata files have a section at the beginning that talks about how to reconcile contradictory rules.

Thanks. Not exactly what I'm looking for, but helpful. I'm looking for more general statements, canons of construction if you will. I have a hunch that a root cause of much of the dysfunction handbook entries is reading the words more literally and formally (in the sense of formal logic) than they were intended. I'm trying to track down evidence on either side. I may have to break down and buy a copy of the player's handbook for both 3.5 and Pathfinder to get at the words that aren't carried over into the SRD...

Are there instructions that the definitions in the Glossary are to be read as exclusive and literal (meaning that this is the only meaning of such terms and the definitions given there should be read word-for-word)? Or is it just left up to normal language.

[Aldrakan]

I don't think it's specified anywhere, but I feel pretty confident in stating that you're correct, the rules were not written for an audience of an unholy fusion of lawyers and computer programmers where the difference between "lackluster ability" and "deals infinite damage" hinges on the placement of a comma. But hey, RAW.

[eggynack]

I'm pretty doubtful. Putting together an official method of rules reading would require the kinda deep rules thinking that probably wouldn't have lead to drown healing in the first place. Actually, I'm incredibly doubtful. I've been in a lot of rules arguments, and I'd think that someone would have been like, "You're not supposed to read the rules like that. The rules say so," at least a few dozen times had that text been present.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm pretty doubtful. Putting together an official method of rules reading would require the kinda deep rules thinking that probably wouldn't have lead to drown healing in the first place. Actually, I'm incredibly doubtful. I've been in a lot of rules arguments, and I'd think that someone would have been like, "You're not supposed to read the rules like that. The rules say so," at least a few dozen times had that text been present.

My hunch seems (to me, at least) to be the cleanest way to assume at least minimal competence from the designers while not claiming bad faith from the internet optimization crew. I've seen what over-reading can do in other areas of life and it seems to fit the facts. It seems to me (note the constant repetition of my hedging here) that most of the dysfunctions can be cured by a simple act of charitable reading. A central rule in legal analysis is to assume that the lawmakers (designers, here) didn't intend absurdity, and so interpretations that avoid absurdity or contradiction should be favored over those that create absurdity, all else being equal. The RAW readings I see (on this forum and elsewhere) seem in many cases designed to create exploitable loopholes.

It's easy to point out problems now, in hind-sight. With any system as complex as the d20 system with its thousands of interacting parts it is easy for differences in initial assumptions about how things should read to lead to wide disparities in final interpretations. I think, ironically, that the attempt to codify the rules more led to the development of "RAW thinking" which led to the current state. If we presented the current state of the game to the original designers at the time of development, I doubt that they would recognize their own product or consider it to be in-line with their intent.

If you can't tell, I'm not fond of the concept of "mechanical" RAW as a binding thing. I don't think that humans can really do meaningful textual analysis of that sort. We end up learning much about the reader and not much about the text. I prefer to think of Rules as Commonly Understood instead, accepting that there must be human thought and interpretation going on. Since the rules aren't even binding on the DM (since he can change them at will, rule 0 and all that), RAW turns out to foster a sense of antagonism and entitlement and be used for munchkin tactics. If that's your thing, fine. I'm not fond of it myself.

Thanks for the input though. It's what I kinda guessed, but wanted confirmation from people more familiar with the system.

[Coretron03]

I don't think it's specified anywhere, but I feel pretty confident in stating that you're correct, the rules were not written for an audience of an unholy fusion of lawyers and computer programmers where the difference between "lackluster ability" and "deals infinite damage" hinges on the placement of a comma. But hey, RAW.

My favourite case of that was a monster that, in it's list of immunities, had Death, effects instead of Death effects. Ah, WoTC, will your writing failures ever cease to amuse me?

[Goaty14]

The only instance ive ever seen one is "Specific rules > General Rules"

[eggynack]

My hunch seems (to me, at least) to be the cleanest way to assume at least minimal competence from the designers while not claiming bad faith from the internet optimization crew. I've seen what over-reading can do in other areas of life and it seems to fit the facts. It seems to me (note the constant repetition of my hedging here) that most of the dysfunctions can be cured by a simple act of charitable reading. A central rule in legal analysis is to assume that the lawmakers (designers, here) didn't intend absurdity, and so interpretations that avoid absurdity or contradiction should be favored over those that create absurdity, all else being equal. The RAW readings I see (on this forum and elsewhere) seem in many cases designed to create exploitable loopholes.

It's easy to point out problems now, in hind-sight. With any system as complex as the d20 system with its thousands of interacting parts it is easy for differences in initial assumptions about how things should read to lead to wide disparities in final interpretations. I think, ironically, that the attempt to codify the rules more led to the development of "RAW thinking" which led to the current state. If we presented the current state of the game to the original designers at the time of development, I doubt that they would recognize their own product or consider it to be in-line with their intent.

If you can't tell, I'm not fond of the concept of "mechanical" RAW as a binding thing. I don't think that humans can really do meaningful textual analysis of that sort. We end up learning much about the reader and not much about the text. I prefer to think of Rules as Commonly Understood instead, accepting that there must be human thought and interpretation going on. Since the rules aren't even binding on the DM (since he can change them at will, rule 0 and all that), RAW turns out to foster a sense of antagonism and entitlement and be used for munchkin tactics. If that's your thing, fine. I'm not fond of it myself.

Thanks for the input though. It's what I kinda guessed, but wanted confirmation from people more familiar with the system.
Going by RAI, which is what you seem to be generally advocating, is nice in theory, but it faces a lot of problems when put into practice. Sure, there are some really absurd cases where we can say, yeah, the rules probably weren't intended to operate that way, but in a lot of situations it's difficult to discern and impossible to prove what the designers intended. I've seen too many people claiming things about RAI that seem clearly wrong on the basis of context to lend much credence to folks making such claims. And I know too many crazy absurd things you can do in this game, purely on the basis of unambiguous rules, to think absurdity a discrediting factor for any given reading. RAW is and always has been an imperfect method, but it's about as good as we got, I think.

[legomaster00156]

There are two rules to reading the rules. The first is that specific rules trump general rules. The second is that if a rule that doesn't make sense the way you're reading it, you're probably not reading it correctly (or the writer(s) was just incompetent, which is also fairly likely).

[Florian]

This applies to both 3.5 and pathfinder.

Pathfinder is very insistent on RAI over RAW and the GM in firm creative control over the rules.
This start with "The Most Important Rule" in the CRB and is well expanded on in the "Advanced Topics" chapter of the GMG. (With the one exception of how this´ll change with organized play, where RAW needs to be over RAI)

[Mordaedil]

Going by RAI, which is what you seem to be generally advocating, is nice in theory, but it faces a lot of problems when put into practice. Sure, there are some really absurd cases where we can say, yeah, the rules probably weren't intended to operate that way, but in a lot of situations it's difficult to discern and impossible to prove what the designers intended. I've seen too many people claiming things about RAI that seem clearly wrong on the basis of context to lend much credence to folks making such claims. And I know too many crazy absurd things you can do in this game, purely on the basis of unambiguous rules, to think absurdity a discrediting factor for any given reading. RAW is and always has been an imperfect method, but it's about as good as we got, I think.
RAW is always going to be limited by the nature of language itself, even just to play the game we have to give it a fair bit of RAI as the rules never even specify where you start the game, which is normally central to what a game is.

[Necroticplague]

There are two rules to reading the rules. The first is that specific rules trump general rules. The second is that if a rule that doesn't make sense the way you're reading it, you're probably not reading it correctly (or the writer(s) was just incompetent, which is also fairly likely).

Another one that I'd consider important is 'the rules say what you can do, not what you can't do', or equivalently 'if it doesn't say you can do something, you can't'. Sounds trivial, but it seems not following this is what leads to a bunch of otherwise really simple questions that pop up repeatedly.

[unseenmage]

My hunch seems (to me, at least) to be the cleanest way to assume at least minimal competence from the designers while not claiming bad faith from the internet optimization crew. I've seen what over-reading can do in other areas of life and it seems to fit the facts. It seems to me (note the constant repetition of my hedging here) that most of the dysfunctions can be cured by a simple act of charitable reading. A central rule in legal analysis is to assume that the lawmakers (designers, here) didn't intend absurdity, and so interpretations that avoid absurdity or contradiction should be favored over those that create absurdity, all else being equal. The RAW readings I see (on this forum and elsewhere) seem in many cases designed to create exploitable loopholes.

...
As has been mentioned this already exists within the community and is referred to as RAI or Rules as Intended.


Another issue is that ofttimes we are discussing a magic infested gameworld. This brings two considerable differences to interpreting RAW vs interpreting IRL Law.

One, there be magic in them thar hills. That is to say, in a magical world drown-healing could conceivably be an intent of a given line of text. A poor example to be sure but you get my meaning, within the confines of a gameworld where breaking causality and basic physics is the norm, breaking common sense would seem to be an oft encountered side effect.

Two, this is, after all, a game. There's a lot of impetus to 'win' and find loopholes to exploit. Unlike IRL Law the consequences aren't as dire nor life altering one would imagine. The stakes are just so very different between a game of pretend and real world legal text that after thinking on it a bit comparing the two almost seems... I don't know, improper somehow? I'd always equated the two somewhat myself, but in retrospect aggrandizingly comparing a game like D&D 3.x to actual law seems inaccurate at the least.

[Florian]

RAW is always going to be limited by the nature of language itself, even just to play the game we have to give it a fair bit of RAI as the rules never even specify where you start the game, which is normally central to what a game is.

I don´t have any of the older DMGs anymore, but it would be interesting how much or far the definition given in the GMG is different from the older incarnation.

The GMG is pretty clear about the special situation that we actually use two unconnected rules sets, "Storytelling" and "Game", that we will more or lass have to husband by hand to get the "starting" and "ending" conditions.

[Mordaedil]

I don´t have any of the older DMGs anymore, but it would be interesting how much or far the definition given in the GMG is different from the older incarnation.

The GMG is pretty clear about the special situation that we actually use two unconnected rules sets, "Storytelling" and "Game", that we will more or lass have to husband by hand to get the "starting" and "ending" conditions.

Well, my point is kinda that we'd have to intuit our own interpretation of the starting condition, ending condition and fail state of the game and almost intuitively adopted non-written segments to be as much a part of the game unlike any other game in existance. Even chess is more rigid than D&D.

RAW is nice for a starting line, but D&D cannot really be played without RAI, from my perspective. You always have to put some of yourself into the game, otherwise you aren't playing it to its optimal.

[eggynack]

RAW is always going to be limited by the nature of language itself, even just to play the game we have to give it a fair bit of RAI as the rules never even specify where you start the game, which is normally central to what a game is.
Sure, RAW inevitably has its limits. This is especially the case when the rules are fundamentally impossible to determine, either by way of contradiction (when the two rules are on the same level in terms of primacy and source alike), or by way of lack of rules on a given topic. However, as an approach to rules understanding, I think RAW makes a lot more sense as a default than RAI does. If you lack RAW for whatever reason, then yes, of course do something that isn't the RAW you don't have. But whenever I see someone saying, "Of course the rules should operate this way. It's obviously how things were intended, because the opposite perspective is clearly absurd," it raises my hackles something fierce.

[Mordaedil]

Sure, RAW inevitably has its limits. This is especially the case when the rules are fundamentally impossible to determine, either by way of contradiction (when the two rules are on the same level in terms of primacy and source alike), or by way of lack of rules on a given topic. However, as an approach to rules understanding, I think RAW makes a lot more sense as a default than RAI does. If you lack RAW for whatever reason, then yes, of course do something that isn't the RAW you don't have. But whenever I see someone saying, "Of course the rules should operate this way. It's obviously how things were intended, because the opposite perspective is clearly absurd," it raises my hackles something fierce.

Why though?

I mean, we aren't mind-readers, we weren't there at the time the rules were written (except some of us who aren't revealing their identities) so most of us can only guess at what the text is actually intending. I've had plenty of situations where we just kinda had to use the rules on the fly and I don't see it as much different for most uses in game. Discussing the rules of D&D isn't really an academic pursuit, even though it is certainly complex enough to be one. Most people just aren't ready to read a thesis and follow it to the letter.

Sometimes the language used in these books can be sort of difficult to understand and needs slight interpretation. A specific example from my mind is when one of my friends planned to play a Crusader and a specific part stuck out to us:

If, at the end of your turn, you cannot be granted a maneuver because you have no withheld maneuvers remaining, you recover all expended maneuvers, and a new pair of readied maneuvers is granted to you.

This sentence in English is gibberish. It tries to use language that isn't fit for human beings to process. It seems to imply that instead of drawing a new power when you've drawn all your powers you get ALL spent powers and 2 new ones from the ether? Which new pair of readied maneuvers does it reference here? It doesn't even implicit that they are random anymore despite the rest of the block clearly emphasizing when it is.

This is a mess when RAW. RAI, we just think of them as cards and use them as that and we make it very simple a matter of treating it like a deck of cards that reshuffles its graveyard.

It doesn't help that RAW given no oversight by a DM allows some fantastic abuses that wouldn't fly at every table. I'm not going to argue that RAI is the end all and be all, gods no. And it makes sense to use RAW as a basis when discussing D&D academically. But I feel like we do more than that on these boards. It really deserves more than that.

[Florian]

Sure, RAW inevitably has its limits. This is especially the case when the rules are fundamentally impossible to determine, either by way of contradiction (when the two rules are on the same level in terms of primacy and source alike), or by way of lack of rules on a given topic. However, as an approach to rules understanding, I think RAW makes a lot more sense as a default than RAI does. If you lack RAW for whatever reason, then yes, of course do something that isn't the RAW you don't have. But whenever I see someone saying, "Of course the rules should operate this way. It's obviously how things were intended, because the opposite perspective is clearly absurd," it raises my hackles something fierce.

I think you´re missing the all-important point here.

What separates a game from a toy is that a game is defined by the rules that govern how you conduct it. Now D&D has a lot of discreet rules elements that you can use during actual play, but it comes notoriously under-equipped with rules that govern how the game itself works, "know it when you see it"-style. What you get is a toy that you have to assemble into a real game to use.

Talking RAW is talking about the toy state of things, pre-assembly, and looking at how things would interact when assembled and used in one way or the other.
It´s a sad thing that most of the time, people seem to lack the means to express how their assembled game looks like and what RAI is then, based on this.

[eggynack]

Why though?

I mean, we aren't mind-readers, we weren't there at the time the rules were written (except some of us who aren't revealing their identities) so most of us can only guess at what the text is actually intending. I've had plenty of situations where we just kinda had to use the rules on the fly and I don't see it as much different for most uses in game. Discussing the rules of D&D isn't really an academic pursuit, even though it is certainly complex enough to be one. Most people just aren't ready to read a thesis and follow it to the letter.
It's precisely because we lack mind reading capacity that the rules as they are should be the default when attempting to interpret their nature. How they operate in a real game can be distinct, but in any sort of abstract setting interpretation seems thoroughly wonky. Basically, it feels like RAI rarely holds up to scrutiny. At a particular table, the rules may not have to hold up to scrutiny, but here we're discussing the rules as they can be said to exist at tables as a whole, not just the rules as they exist in my head.


This sentence in English is gibberish. It tries to use language that isn't fit for human beings to process. It seems to imply that instead of drawing a new power when you've drawn all your powers you get ALL spent powers and 2 new ones from the ether? Which new pair of readied maneuvers does it reference here? It doesn't even implicit that they are random anymore despite the rest of the block clearly emphasizing when it is.

This is a mess when RAW. RAI, we just think of them as cards and use them as that and we make it very simple a matter of treating it like a deck of cards that reshuffles its graveyard.
Is that text ambiguous? I'm not a ToB expert, but it seems unambiguous RAW-wise. Looking at the surrounding text, it looks like the various terms that could be seen as ambiguous in a vacuum are rather well defined, if not quite so rigorously as one might like. If you really want some problems deeply unsolvable by RAW, you should go with some form changing magic. For example, what are the size limits on polymorph, or what happens to ability damage once you wild shape? I'm pretty convinced that both of those problems are fully ambiguous.



But I feel like we do more than that on these boards. It really deserves more than that.
In large part though, I don't know what we could do more-wise. If you wanna have everyone just assume that monks have unarmed strike proficiency for the purposes of discussion of the class, you can get near everyone on board, but so many of the stupidest things in the game just are the way they are with little room for argument. I think that, broadly speaking, someone's best bet along these lines would be to construct explicit premises. Say, "Hey, I know it's probably possible to IHS away the universe, but, for the purposes of this discussion, let's assume the maneuver follows the rules set out by the unofficial ToB errata."

[Gruftzwerg]

Reading RAW:
First lets take a more general approach here, not sole limited to 3.5.

There are some (unwritten?) rules about writing rules (or laws). Cause you want the least confusion (note, that you can't guaranty no confusion!^^) in the reading audience and some kind of structure to make reading and understanding easier.

Keywords or Keyterms are a way to do this.
These have to be "clearly" defined in some way. This could be to write it in bold or italic letters, a title of a paragraph or a table (not column, since a single value ain't enough information unless followed by detailed explanation in text form). This is followed by some explanation that "trumps general definition by language".
If something is not clearly defined, you fall back to general default definition by language. So if you find a word in the middle of some ruletext, it doesn't become a keyword (a common mistake I often see here on the boards). Cause if you wouldn't need to define keywords, you would need to always check each word in an ability with each instance of these words in the entire (!) rules to make sure if you got all the rules regarding those words and that would cause to much work and confusion.
This should make it clear, that it is basic logic that enforces this rule. That's why in many rules (overall, not only 3.5) the Keyword-rule ain't get special mention. It's something that you learn in school if you are lucky and learn the basics of rules & laws and how to apply em.

Specific Trumps General
This is another overall (not 3.5 specific) rule based on pure logic. Cause if this wouldn't be a base rule, every specific rule would become general. Again this would cause to read the entire rules just to understand a single ability or to solve a single situation (otherwise you could miss some specific rule hidden somewhere..) and makes thus no sense. You have to assume "Specific Trumps General" to simplicities & structures sake. This is the reason, why this rules ain't got mentioned in the books and is only in the ERRATA of the books. The authors assumed it as common sense, since it's a "basic rule of rules" and just pure logic.

What is General & what is Specific?
This is really iffy depending on the situation to solve. Cause depending on the situation, something can be either general or specific. e.g. Power Attack is specific when compared to a "normal attack", but becomes general when compared with Leap Attack. This may be important if you chain a dozen abilities together into a single action to see how they interact with each other.
And as last note here, in 3.5 entire books can become "general" for something.

[Celestia]

I don't know if there are any "instructions," per se, but I hear that elementary school is the place to go if you want to learn how to read things. That might just be hearsay, though. I've never gone, myself.

[Florian]

I don't know if there are any "instructions," per se, but I hear that elementary school is the place to go if you want to learn how to read things. That might just be hearsay, though. I've never gone, myself.

That´s not really funny.

You know that math can be expressed as formulae as well as verbose text, which you have to distill the formulae from. This is elementary school level.
You might also know and understand that formal logic can be expressed as formulae and the same principles as above can be applied, too. That´s a fair bit beyond elementary school.

Now d20 has an underlying math so you more or less always need to parse verbose text instructions into the formulae used by the system. That can get pretty wrong results when what is written in the verbose text of the discreet rules element and what you can parse from it simply don´t mesh or function, see "drowning healing" for this.

[tiercel]

I guess I had thought this was supposed to be Rules Compendium is for... but to be honest, I'm not sure what Rules Compendium is actually for. (Except maybe fans of explicit fear-stacking to the cowering condition?)

The idea that people might need a RAW for the RAW makes me itch, though; I understand RAW is where online discussions about the game start, for instance, since it is a common starting point. But I've always understood part of a DM's job to be "referee": in any sport, you play by the ref's call. The ref can and will at times get it wrong by RAW (even not counting deliberate house rules), but you need that element of judgment to make this many rules into a functional game.

Unless your playstyle is "court case" any time a rule ambiguity crops up, and the DM feels like a more limited arbiter than referee. If that is the fun for everyone in a group... sure?

[RoboEmperor]

Well, there's the Glossary for defining terms. Most complete version of it is online.

Don't take the glossary definitions as "word of god". Some of their definitions contradict with what the rules explicitly say elsewhere.

Reading d&d rules is really, really hard. They are unclear, brief, all-over the place, never repeated, and hidden as one sentence in various sections.

What I learned is to actually keep your own detailed notes and cite where you got them. For example, from Shadowcrafter PrC: "At 9th level, a shadowcrafter has such complete mastery of illusion spells that he no longer needs to interact with them to merit a saving throw. If he can see or otherwise witness the illusory effect, he can attempt a save."

You see? A player using Silent Image needs to show the DM exactly what is "interacting" with the image and what is not, and you have to find clarification in a PrC in a setting specific book. The PrC clearly states just witnessing or seeing the illusory effect does not merit a saving throw. You have no idea how much debating I had to go through, and against noob DMs I flat out stopped using this spell.

Also considering whether or not you can cast higher level spells you can't normally cast at your level with versatile spellcaster, I had to dig out over 20 examples where each of them showed that the RAW literally only cared about whether you had the ability score to cast them or not.

Unless you memorize every d&d book out there, the only way to find clarification is actually to post on this forum for help, and from there keep increasing your notes.

[Gruftzwerg]

Don't take the glossary definitions as "word of god". Some of their definitions contradict with what the rules explicitly say elsewhere.


Really? I am not really aware of any so far. Would you be so kind to point me to a few?
I am always curious when it's about bugged 3.5 rules.

[eggynack]

Really? I am not really aware of any so far. Would you be so kind to point me to a few?
I am always curious when it's about bugged 3.5 rules.
Attack and unarmed strike are two that I think come up sometimes. Attack is especially weird, and is kinda interesting in the context of invisibility.

[Gruftzwerg]

Attack and unarmed strike are two that I think come up sometimes. Attack is especially weird, and is kinda interesting in the context of invisibility.

I don't get it. In either chase I don't see anything wrong. Where is the confusion hidden? For me it seems OK at first glance.

I looked it up in the 3.5 archive (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/glossary&term=&alpha=), since I have a german PHB andthe translation ain't always reliable in such fine chases. Maybe it's written in a different manner in the PHB?

[eggynack]

I don't get it. In either chase I don't see anything wrong. Where is the confusion hidden? For me it seems OK at first glance.
Well, the definition of attack specifies that it necessarily involves a die roll, which conflicts with the way the term generally seems to be used, as any kind of direct offensive act. Like, fireball might be expected to be an attack, and it's presented as something that would be one in invisibility, but it's not one, I guess. The unarmed strike thing is related to whether an unarmed strike is a weapon, because a lot of text elsewhere implies/states that it's not one, and the glossary entry confuses that issue in a really weird way.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well, the definition of attack specifies that it necessarily involves a die roll, which conflicts with the way the term generally seems to be used, as any kind of direct offensive act. Like, fireball might be expected to be an attack, and it's presented as something that would be one in invisibility, but it's not one, I guess. The unarmed strike thing is related to whether an unarmed strike is a weapon, because a lot of text elsewhere implies/states that it's not one, and the glossary entry confuses that issue in a really weird way.

I don't see any confusion. Attack (the game term) is not the same as attack (the normal term). It's just a term of art, like so many other things. Now if they don't use it consistently, that's on them (the designers).

It's funny that that (what exactly is an attack) is still an active point of contention in 5e as evidenced by a multi-page thread on those forums. With the same arguments, too. At least in 5e the general rule is well established as exactly that--attacks are things that use an attack roll. There are specific things that are attacks that use other resolution methods (grappling/shoving for example) but those are specifics that override the general rule and are specifically called out as a special kind of attack. The wording is consistent throughout the rule books.

Maybe they learned a thing or two :smalltongue:

[eggynack]

I don't see any confusion. Attack (the game term) is not the same as attack (the normal term). It's just a term of art, like so many other things. Now if they don't use it consistently, that's on them (the designers).
You're assuming that the term attack is never used in a definitional sense that interacts oddly with this particular definition. I don't specifically recall the weird rules issues that result, but I know this glossary entry has come up in arguments. It's actually kinda weird to claim that invisibility is using attack is a normal term. It's a really precisely defined term there. I've frequently seen cause to reference the invisibility definition of attack.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You're assuming that the term attack is never used in a definitional sense that interacts oddly with this particular definition. I don't specifically recall the weird rules issues that result, but I know this glossary entry has come up in arguments. It's actually kinda weird to claim that invisibility is using attack is a normal term. It's a really precisely defined term there. I've frequently seen cause to reference the invisibility definition of attack.

Reading the text of the invisibility spell, I really don't see the issue. Yes, it redefines attack, but that's a specific vs general override, not a conflict of rules. Specific always beats general, and specific usually makes exceptions to definitions of terms. It even specifically scopes the redefinition to the spell itself. The invisibility definition doesn't apply anywhere except by that spell by its own terms. You'll have to explain what the problem is here.




The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. (Exactly who is a foe depends on the invisible character’s perceptions.) Actions directed at unattended objects do not break the spell. Causing harm indirectly is not an attack. Thus, an invisible being can open doors, talk, eat, climb stairs, summon monsters and have them attack, cut the ropes holding a rope bridge while enemies are on the bridge, remotely trigger traps, open a portcullis to release attack dogs, and so forth. If the subject attacks directly, however, it immediately becomes visible along with all its gear. Spells such as bless that specifically affect allies but not foes are not attacks for this purpose, even when they include foes in their area.


First sentence: end condition using term.
Second sentence: definition of term, scoped to the spell.
Third through last sentences: examples and further specifications.


This is actually a good example of my whole point. Read in context, there is a general rule (found in the glossary) and a set of specific exceptions. Taking the specific exceptions as the general rule (or even outside the specific spell itself) is misreading the text and leads to absurdity. This proof-texting (taking a specific passage out of context and applying it where it doesn't belong) is pure sophistry and bad reading.

[RoboEmperor]

Really? I am not really aware of any so far. Would you be so kind to point me to a few?
I am always curious when it's about bugged 3.5 rules.

On the top of my head:
Wizard Spell Known. Glossary says a wizard's spell known is the spells in his spellbook, nothing more, so a wizard who lost his spellbook has no spell known.

Contradiction:
1. Complete Arcane says there is no magical connection between a wizard and his spellbook, so what spells a wizard knows and what spells in his spellbook should be independent of each other.
2. PHB and d20srd says a wizard can prepare a spell that he knows from a borrowed spellbook, but he cannot prepare a spell he doesn't know from a borrowed spellbook.

Result: A wizard spell known is any spell he successfully scribed into a spellbook at any time independent of his spellbook.

This is very important when you lose your spell book and try to use a borrowed spellbook, Spell Mastery, or Uncanny Forethought to regain access to spells that were in your old spellbook.

[eggynack]

Reading the text of the invisibility spell, I really don't see the issue. Yes, it redefines attack, but that's a specific vs general override, not a conflict of rules. Specific always beats general, and specific usually makes exceptions to definitions of terms. It even specifically scopes the redefinition to the spell itself. The invisibility definition doesn't apply anywhere except by that spell by its own terms. You'll have to explain what the problem is here.
What's weird in that particular case is that the invisibility definition for attack is implied to just kinda be the definition of attack. More important though is that the invisibility definition of attack is significantly more parsimonious with the way the term gets used in the books. The glossary definition, as I recall, has some weird conflicts with the way some things operate.


This is actually a good example of my whole point. Read in context, there is a general rule (found in the glossary) and a set of specific exceptions. Taking the specific exceptions as the general rule (or even outside the specific spell itself) is misreading the text and leads to absurdity. This proof-texting (taking a specific passage out of context and applying it where it doesn't belong) is pure sophistry and bad reading.
The invisibility thing is more weird than directly conflicting. The weirdness occurs elsewhere, where an ability, for whatever reason, relies on the specific meaning of attack, and the way it's defined there produces problems. Again, don't have any solid examples of this at the moment, but your assumption that this is all trivially RAW resolvable is weird. I mean, your point couldn't possibly be that all things are trivial or even particularly possible to resolve by RAW. I can find you unresolvable things if you want.

[PhoenixPhyre]

What's weird in that particular case is that the invisibility definition for attack is implied to just kinda be the definition of attack. More important though is that the invisibility definition of attack is significantly more parsimonious with the way the term gets used in the books. The glossary definition, as I recall, has some weird conflicts with the way some things operate.


I disagree that this is weird or wrong. Polysemy (a word having multiple meanings) is a feature of language and is more common than not. Context disambiguates definitions. This particular definition is explicitly a special case. It's explicitly scoped to the particular spell by the words "For the purposes of this spell." If you apply it anywhere else you're doing it wrong and violating RAW. It's a trivial example of specific beating general (one of the core principles of the system). A simple canon of construction--definitions in the text of an ability are scoped to that ability only and are exceptions, not general rules--solves this and other similar issues. General rules are found in the general "How to Play" sections or in the Glossary. They apply everywhere unless specifically overridden in the text, and those specific overrides are scoped as narrowly as possible. This is true even if it "doesn't make sense." The rules are definitions for the purpose of playing a game and are true by construction; "making sense" enters nowhere into the picture.



The invisibility thing is more weird than directly conflicting. The weirdness occurs elsewhere, where an ability, for whatever reason, relies on the specific meaning of attack, and the way it's defined there produces problems. Again, don't have any solid examples of this at the moment, but your assumption that this is all trivially RAW resolvable is weird. I mean, your point couldn't possibly be that all things are trivial or even particularly possible to resolve by RAW. I can find you unresolvable things if you want.

I'd have to see examples. I don't claim that everything is trivially a mis-reading, but that many of the tricks that result in system-and-setting breakage rely on questionable readings that require bending (if not breaking) the context and wording of the text. So far, the majority of examples I've seen require
+importing a subjective notion of "making sense" or "logic" that doesn't apply. Definitions aren't logical propositions and are tautologically true. Nothing says that the rules must "make sense" to everyone.

or

+tendentious misreading and ignoring context: e.g. pulling the "it doesn't say I can't" card. That's a trick I get from my high-school students and is sophomoric in quality.

or

+mistaking the specific for the general (as in the invisibility example).

I'm open to other examples. I'm sure that there are genuine WTF moments in the actual rules. There's too much material printed for 3.5 for there to not be. For those, I prefer relying on the DM and table in general to be reasonable and find an acceptable resolution instead of trying to cement those bugs as features (as is done in much of the RAW and optimization discussions from my perspective at least).

[eggynack]

I'd have to see examples. I don't claim that everything is trivially a mis-reading, but that many of the tricks that result in system-and-setting breakage rely on questionable readings that require bending (if not breaking) the context and wording of the text. So far, the majority of examples I've seen require.
Polymorph, that classic rules problem creator. What's its size restriction? The text says it adopts all unstated rules from alter self. Trouble is, polymorph features the text, "You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than fine." So, does this size restriction text override the whole size restriction of alter self, or just the low end of it? As far as I can tell, which way this goes is wholly ambiguous, by way of strict rules and context reading alike. It's a rules issue that partially leads to some powerful stuff, but it's also partially there just in and of itself, with neither side having much claim to some intentionality.

Then you have the exact opposite, tricks that don't require any questionable readings whatsoever. So, for example, wish looping. Assuming you do all the things required for it to be a wish loop (gaining XP free wishes primarily), it's all straightforwardly unambiguous by the rules, and yet it's incredibly powerful, more powerful than just about anything else. Tons of really powerful stuff is like that. Or, hey, how about wall of salt for piles of super pricey salt to sell? Nothing's really being broken by way of context or wording, and yet you're crushing WBL into pieces.


+importing a subjective notion of "making sense" or "logic" that doesn't apply. Definitions aren't logical propositions and are tautologically true. Nothing says that the rules must "make sense" to everyone.
This is the exact opposite of what you initially proposed, least as far as I can tell. You started out with what looks like the idea that we should follow some intuitive RAI construct, and now you're saying that making sense is meaningless. Well, if making sense is meaningless, then what standard besides the rules am I to apply when I claim that IHS lets the sun be destroyed? If I am to follow context and wording above and beyond a logical programmatic reading of the text, then I've really gotta be following something that isn't straightforward logic, and that something seems like it has to be whether it makes sense.



+mistaking the specific for the general (as in the invisibility example).
I think you're missing the point with that one. The issue isn't the really the direct contradiction with invisibility, but rather the way I'm pretty sure the attacking definition conflicts with the way the game seems to want to operate sometimes. Actually, here's a pretty straightforward situation. Charm person. That spell specifies that your friends threatening or attacking the creature imposes a bonus to the save. Does it count as attacking the creature if I'm standing 400 feet away shooting fireballs at them?

[Gruftzwerg]

regarding Invisibility:
As other have pointed out, this is "Specific trumps General"! And not "Specific becomes General" !
I don't get why people try to make specific rules, like in this case Invisibility, general rules?
Invisibility even calls out that "for this spell" the term attack is extended. It doesn't say that all attacks are like this! Really, reread the 2 terms and get the difference.


_______________________________________________


On the top of my head:
Wizard Spell Known. Glossary says a wizard's spell known is the spells in his spellbook, nothing more, so a wizard who lost his spellbook has no spell known.

Contradiction:
1. Complete Arcane says there is no magical connection between a wizard and his spellbook, so what spells a wizard knows and what spells in his spellbook should be independent of each other.
2. PHB and d20srd says a wizard can prepare a spell that he knows from a borrowed spellbook, but he cannot prepare a spell he doesn't know from a borrowed spellbook.

Result: A wizard spell known is any spell he successfully scribed into a spellbook at any time independent of his spellbook.

This is very important when you lose your spell book and try to use a borrowed spellbook, Spell Mastery, or Uncanny Forethought to regain access to spells that were in your old spellbook.

Wizards have 2 ways to "know" spells (imho):
a) free known spells from lvl1 and lvlUps
b) spells you copied into your spellbook. This means, you translated the spell into your own way of writing spells. Differs, from just preparing a spell from a borrowed book! You need to write it into your book to complete the process of "knowing".

__________________

about the Glossary:
Keep in mind that the glossary is just a "short info/overview" about the topic. Not the entire definition. It doesn't provide the full 100% of the rules, just a quick overview.

e.g. Unarmed Strike: It just talks about what people are proficient in. It lacks the info the non-monk can do lethal dmg too, when taking a -4 penalty (regular for the lack of proper proficiency which is another rule! It is just mentioned in Unarmed Strike, to make it obvious which rule you need to apply here.)

edit:
e.g. Wizard Spells Known: For 99% of times, the quick info provided is enough to solve the situation at hand. For the remaining 1% where you are still confused, you better read the extended rule part ;)

[logic_error]

The general source of problem almost always is reading as written. The features a DAM for a reason.

[Florian]

I don't get why people try to make specific rules, like in this case Invisibility, general rules?

The impression I get from a lot of forum discussions is that some people seem to have a problem with how exception-based design works and try to handle it like it was an complete corpus of rules, which would lead to a shift from the exception to the common rule.

That leads back to the topic as the "golden rule", specific trumps general, tries to explain the connection between the common rules and that they´re overwritten or modified by the exception.

[eggynack]

regarding Invisibility:
As other have pointed out, this is "Specific trumps General"! And not "Specific becomes General" !
I don't get why people try to make specific rules, like in this case Invisibility, general rules?
Invisibility even calls out that "for this spell" the term attack is extended. It doesn't say that all attacks are like this! Really, reread the 2 terms and get the difference.
I don't get why people keep taking specific parts of this larger claim out of context as a way to discredit the whole argument, making it into some weird thing about how I somehow don't know about specific, general, and the relationship between the two. Invisibility is, again, simply the more intuitive way to read attacking, while the glossary definition of attack, by itself, even if we assume the invisibility definition was never written, is kinda wonky in certain situations. Like, here's a decent one I found by ctrl+f'ing the PHB. Countersong says, "If a creature within range of the countersong is already under the effect of a non-instantaneous sonic or language-dependent magical attack..." So, if we assume the glossary definition of attack as broadly applicable in any sense, what does that mean for this ability? Does this non-instantaneous sonic or language-dependent magical game object need to have an attack roll associated with it in order to be impacted? If that were the case, then the ability would near necessarily do nothing, because it demands something already in effect, and you usually don't get more attack rolls after something is already in effect. And, naturally, the examples given bear this out. Sound burst doesn't have an attack roll, after all, and neither does command.

Nothing in countersong directly overrides any existing definitions for attack. The closest it comes is, first, giving specific examples that don't fit the glossary definition, and, second, generally presenting a game object that doesn't make much sense with that glossary definition. But this is rules text specifically presenting attack as some variety of prerequisite for being hit by countersong, and we're supposed to make some sort of use of the glossary definitions in assessing how the rules operate, at least when rules exist that govern the situation, so I guess countersong hits neither of the spells given as examples, and maybe no spells at all, because there's no particular reason to think a magical attack isn't a subset of attack, and requiring attack rolls makes the ability not work. But, hey, you know what definition of attack is really consistent with the definition they seem to be using in this ability? The frigging invisibility definition.

Ooh, I just found an even better one. Evasion. "If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage." I guess rogues can't dodge fireballs, or really much of anything, because evasion specifically works with attacks, and fireball, by the glossary definition, isn't an attack. We still have some example text, but nothing about it being a magical attack or totally useless if we apply this reading. Just our intuition fighting against this supposedly solid glossary text, but, once again, finding peace with the really well constructed invisibility definition.


about the Glossary:
Keep in mind that the glossary is just a "short info/overview" about the topic. Not the entire definition. It doesn't provide the full 100% of the rules, just a quick overview.
I would in no sense expect the glossary to present all of the facts that exist in association with a topic. However, if we are to heavily rely on this as rules text (which, despite the oddities, maybe we should, because it's in a core book and such) then we should expect the information presented therein to be broadly accurate.


e.g. Unarmed Strike: It just talks about what people are proficient in. It lacks the info the non-monk can do lethal dmg too, when taking a -4 penalty (regular for the lack of proper proficiency which is another rule! It is just mentioned in Unarmed Strike, to make it obvious which rule you need to apply here.)
Perhaps I should have been more clear here. The text I'm talking about is, "From a character attacking without weapons." It's kinda weird, because the unarmed strike is provably a weapon, or should otherwise be universally treated as one, on the basis of other text in the book. I have a few reasonable ways to resolve that weirdness, with my favorite being the universally treated as concept, but it's weirdness nonetheless.

[RoboEmperor]

a) free known spells from lvl1 and lvlUps
b) spells you copied into your spellbook. This means, you translated the spell into your own way of writing spells. Differs, from just preparing a spell from a borrowed book! You need to write it into your book to complete the process of "knowing".

I think you misread my post. I said b), that a wizard knows any spell he scribed into his spellbook. I never said a wizard learns a spell by preparing a spell from a borrowed spellbook. I said a wizard cannot prepare a spell he does not know from a borrowed spellbook.

[logic_error]

@Florian

It's not that. People fail to understand the *purpose* of rules. D&D is a game based on rules so that it can emulate a wargame at *parts*. i.e. Certain interactions or specifically combat needs to be a challenge or a puzzle that needs to be solved via intellect and that requires some guideline. But outside of these cases D&D is a Role Playing Game and rules that take the war-game aspect too much into the RP portion need to be controlled by the DM. This is of course assuming that the rules are otherwise perfect, which btw, they are not. A lot of rules were written clumsily and sometimes without regard to other sources of rules outside of current context. On the whole it is a huge victory of D&D that despite this jumble, it is NOT a mess precisely because a common denominator DM understands where the purpose of rules is not satisfied.

People who tend to rules-lawyer as the default thus, of course, are fundamentally missing the point of all this.

[Florian]

@Florian

It's not that. People fail to understand the *purpose* of rules. D&D is a game based on rules so that it can emulate a wargame at *parts*. i.e. Certain interactions or specifically combat needs to be a challenge or a puzzle that needs to be solved via intellect and that requires some guideline. But outside of these cases D&D is a Role Playing Game and rules that take the war-game aspect too much into the RP portion need to be controlled by the DM. This is of course assuming that the rules are otherwise perfect, which btw, they are not. A lot of rules were written clumsily and sometimes without regard to other sources of rules outside of current context. On the whole it is a huge victory of D&D that despite this jumble, it is NOT a mess precisely because a common denominator DM understands where the purpose of rules is not satisfied.

People who tend to rules-lawyer as the default thus, of course, are fundamentally missing the point of all this.

I´d expand that a bit. Part of the nature of the d20 system is that is build upon the principle of being a "Permissive System", meaning that each discreet rules elements gives you express permission to break the core rules in one way or another.
Example: Exotic Weapon proficiency gives you the permission to use an exotic weapon without the default -4 penalty that is part of the core rules.

The result of this kind of design is that each discreet rules element must be self-contained and provide a clear permission, and it can only ever function in regard to the core rules.

So the "stat block" for a monster or character is actually the sum of what it is permitted to actually do.

While I totally understand your point, I think it´s important to point out what kind of side-effect this can have: "It exists, I paid the cost for it, I´m now permitted to". I wouldn't call that "taking the war-game into RP", but rather "empowerment stance".
We can see this again and again when talk about the classes and especially the tiers comes up.

[Gruftzwerg]

First I want to apologize..
I wanted to make the post sound more directed to the general audience and did took the quotes just as starting point. So don't take my post personal pls, I am talking about peoples mistakes in general (and I am no exception here btw, I do these mistakes sometimes too, it happens^^).




Countersong says, "If a creature within range of the countersong is already under the effect of a non-instantaneous sonic or language-dependent magical attack..."
I marked the important part.

attack != full attack
attack != language-dependent magical
attack != xxx attack
attack != attack xxx

I hope you get the pattern. I know, that it isn't always easy and obvious, but as said: the rules try to make the least confusion possible = there will always be some confusion left to think about and to look for patterns like in this chase.

_______________________________

@ someonenoone11
the answer wasn't specially addressed to you ;)
as said, I just took your quote to give my general opinion about it. I even didn't say that I would disagree with you. So no ill intention here. For the most part I agree with your explanation. I just wanted to point out the fine differences of "knowing" and "just prepared & used out of some other wizards spellbook".


____________________________
edit:

Evasion:
Evasion is referring to "Reflex half", a (sadly undefined but always used) term in spell info blocks. While it lacks the official definition (and therefore you could argue to treat "attack" as defined what would bring much problems/confusion), you can clearly see a pattern of how it is always used. So you can assume it as somehwhat defined. By 100% strict RAW you could argue and demand and errata for it. While RAI it is 100% how it is meant to be.
edit2: since defining keywords in 3.5 itself ain't defined, you could treat the "Reflex Half" in the statbock + the info in the spells description as declaration/definition of "reflex half". so each Reflex Half spell would be defining it.

[Florian]

Ooh, I just found an even better one. Evasion. "If she makes a successful Reflex saving throw against an attack that normally deals half damage on a successful save, she instead takes no damage." I guess rogues can't dodge fireballs, or really much of anything, because evasion specifically works with attacks, and fireball, by the glossary definition, isn't an attack. We still have some example text, but nothing about it being a magical attack or totally useless if we apply this reading. Just our intuition fighting against this supposedly solid glossary text, but, once again, finding peace with the really well constructed invisibility definition.

Your argument here only works if you see every discreet rules element as being absolutely self-contained and not referencing back to the core rules.

The core rules definition of "Saving Throws" is very clear about handling anything or any effect that would trigger a saving throw as an attack, going so far as to name Fireball as an example of something being an attack, while not following the core description of attacks.

As with a lot of "dysfunctions", this will mostly happen when not looking at what core rule and exception actually modifies.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm going to respond generally, and then spoiler individual responses for length.
My point is two-fold.

1) The text matters and must be read correctly, in-context and without importing (at this step!) outside attempts to make sense. The tools here are good faith natural readings (ie not parsing word-by-word or importing definitions outside their bounded context) and include "specific beats general" which seems to be the only set-in-stone rule for understanding the text of 3.5e. This textual understanding forms a baseline for the rest of the discussion but does not end the issue. Tables (and DMs) can and should apply patches to the baseline to make sense (to them). Calling these patches part of the rules is disengenous and usually done as part of motivated reasoning. In essence, the text, properly understood, is necessary but not sufficient. Many dysfunctions go away here in my opinion. Most of what the various forums call "RAW" is based on over-literal or out-of-context readings.

2) The focus on "RAW" as a binding force (as in, anyone who doesn't follow "RAW" as per the forums is cheating) is destructive to the game itself by fostering a sense of entitlement and antagonism between players and DM. It denies the DM agency, trying to codify things that were left uncodified. Instead we (as participants on forums) should focus more on "Rules as Actually Applied" or "Rules as Commonly Understood," using a "Reasonable DM" standard. As part of that, discussing what the text actually says can be very useful (and in fact necessary). It's not sufficient, and should be clearly labeled and dispassionately analyzed. Attempts at power-mongering or munchkinry fail at this step, even if they're allowed by "RAW."

To use a legal metaphor (because I find the law has the best tools for close analysis of rules text): We are judges of equity. First we determine what is required by the law. This must be done without regard for "making sense" unless not doing so would lead to an absurdity[1]. The rules are the rules. Then we (at the level of the individual table) decide what is best (most fun for all, since this is a game) in a particular case. This can include completely ignoring the text, but only applies to that particular case and isn't precedent for other cases.

[1]In legal terms, an absurdity is a strong standard. It would have to be nonsense (as in make no sense at all) rather than mis-sense (making the wrong kind of sense). An example might be if buildings are required to be taller than 3 stories but shorter than 2 stories or if the text is completely incomprehensible due to grammar, spelling, or just plain stupidity. This actually happens a non-trivial amount of the time, but is still pretty rare.




Polymorph, that classic rules problem creator. What's its size restriction? The text says it adopts all unstated rules from alter self. Trouble is, polymorph features the text, "You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than fine." So, does this size restriction text override the whole size restriction of alter self, or just the low end of it? As far as I can tell, which way this goes is wholly ambiguous, by way of strict rules and context reading alike. It's a rules issue that partially leads to some powerful stuff, but it's also partially there just in and of itself, with neither side having much claim to some intentionality.
My thoughts:
Sentence 1: Import alter self. Remove limit: self only. Add limit: willing.
Sentence 2: Replace creature type limit with expanded list of creature types.
Sentence 3: Sets new HD cap.
Sentence 4: Adds new limits: Minimum size category is fine and new form cannot be gaseous or incorporeal. This first limit is a tricky part. Options:

The phrase adds a limit that wasn't there before but otherwise leaves things unchanged. If the subject was already size fine (somehow), it can't get any smaller. If they weren't size fine, then the phrase has no effect. Overall limit: max(fine, old size - 1) < new size < old size + 1
The phrase overrides the size limits of alter self entirely. The new limit is new size >= fine.

As I see it, it's correct that there is no pure textual reading that removes the ambiguity. I would probably go with option 2 as a DM, mainly because turning into big things is cool (I wanna be a dinosaur!), but would have no problem playing under a DM who insisted on option 1. Both (to me) are valid. My verdict: the text is ambiguous. Chose one option and go with it.



Then you have the exact opposite, tricks that don't require any questionable readings whatsoever. So, for example, wish looping. Assuming you do all the things required for it to be a wish loop (gaining XP free wishes primarily), it's all straightforwardly unambiguous by the rules, and yet it's incredibly powerful, more powerful than just about anything else. Tons of really powerful stuff is like that. Or, hey, how about wall of salt for piles of super pricey salt to sell? Nothing's really being broken by way of context or wording, and yet you're crushing WBL into pieces.
These are the class of things where the text isn't really the controlling bit. A few notes about the "standard" wish loop as I understand it: you have to be lawful evil to do it and doing so is a lawful evil act. Thus for a cleric to do so is risky unless they're already lawful evil. Anyone else of non-evil alignment should also be very displeased with the wish looper. It's enslavement of the worst kind.

You also pay the 1000 XP cost for casting Gate using a Candle of Invocation as nothing about the candle removes that cost ("allows the owner to cast gate", not "casts gate itself"). So not as bad as wish (5k XP), but still. Doing this also is going to (at least if I were the DM) piss off a bunch of lawful evil and very powerful creatures. Expect to find a small squad of uncontrolled efreeti on your doorstep real soon. You're also limited to the safe effects of the wishes (which are still strong). These are the kinds of things that RAW disregards--the logical consequences of player actions.

Note of pure vindictiveness (if we really want to twist words here, not really intended seriously): The gate spell says you can call a specific type of creature and that the gate opens in the vicinity of "the desired creature." If you call an "efreeti," you may get a 30 HD Huge one or a unique being that happens to be an efreeti. Squish. Or the DM could rule that the efreeti called had already used his wishes that day, so no dice.

Wall of salt requires a buyer. Economy breaking (like so many other theoretical abuses) requires a complicit or push-over DM. These pass step one (the text is fine) but step 2 (judging equity) fails hard. If asked about them, I would point out the flaws (listed above) but say "The text allows it, but no reasonable DM should allow it in a game unless everyone's ok with that and the consequences."

Wish looping and economy-breaking are theoretical abuses that would not fly under a reasonable DM standard. Just as in the law, there are no magic words at the gaming table. That is, these are a theoretical problem that don't come up at real tables (at least ones that I'd be willing to play at). Attempting these is an OOC problem (committing the gaming sin of intentionally breaking the game) and are "do at your own risk, possibly of getting rulebooks thrown at you."


This is the exact opposite of what you initially proposed, least as far as I can tell. You started out with what looks like the idea that we should follow some intuitive RAI construct, and now you're saying that making sense is meaningless. Well, if making sense is meaningless, then what standard besides the rules am I to apply when I claim that IHS lets the sun be destroyed? If I am to follow context and wording above and beyond a logical programmatic reading of the text, then I've really gotta be following something that isn't straightforward logic, and that something seems like it has to be whether it makes sense.
Covered in the general discussion above. The text is step one, equity (making the game fun) is step two. I don't have access to the text of IHS since it's not in the SRD, so I can't be more specific about that particular example.


I think you're missing the point with that one. The issue isn't the really the direct contradiction with invisibility, but rather the way I'm pretty sure the attacking definition conflicts with the way the game seems to want to operate sometimes. Actually, here's a pretty straightforward situation. Charm person. That spell specifies that your friends threatening or attacking the creature imposes a bonus to the save. Does it count as attacking the creature if I'm standing 400 feet away shooting fireballs at them?
No, but it counts as threatening it, certainly, so the bonus still applies and it breaks instantly as soon as you shoot the fireball. "Any act by you or your apparent allies that threatens the charmed person breaks the spell." Messing with the definition of attack is unnecessary since there's already a saving clause in the spell. Without analyzing all effects that involve attacks, I'd bet that there's a saving construction like that in most of them.

[logic_error]

Another important point:

When is a patch not a houserule? When it makes the rules change play as intended. E.g. you can patch dweomerkeeper power to use spells as SLA to mention that spells with expensive components and XP costs still need them.

Not a houserule, because this is only way it can made into a playable class.

Give soulknife a full BAB? Houserule.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Another important point:

When is a patch not a houserule? When it makes the rules change play as intended. E.g. you can patch dweomerkeeper power to use spells as SLA to mention that spells with expensive components and XP costs still need them.

Not a houserule, because this is only way it can made into a playable class.

Give soulknife a full BAB? Houserule.

I basically agree. For me it's the distinction between fixing an obvious (to the table in question) oversight or error that prevents proper functioning and making changes to an already-working (even if with poor results) ability, class, or whatever.

I'm also very not opposed to more sweeping changes if that's what the table wants. The first answer to any "can I" question that can't be answered with an unambiguous page citation should be "ask the DM/table." Even for things that are strictly "RAW" legal.

[eggynack]

attack != full attack
attack != language-dependent magical
attack != xxx attack
attack != attack xxx

I hope you get the pattern. I know, that it isn't always easy and obvious, but as said: the rules try to make the least confusion possible = there will always be some confusion left to think about and to look for patterns like in this chase.
It's a distinction, but is it one supported by any element of the text? As is, we have this definition, which I'm arguing we shouldn't necessarily follow to the ends of the earth, and we have very little acting against it.


Evasion is referring to "Reflex half", a (sadly undefined but always used) term in spell info blocks. While it lacks the official definition (and therefore you could argue to treat "attack" as defined what would bring much problems/confusion), you can clearly see a pattern of how it is always used. So you can assume it as somehwhat defined. By 100% strict RAW you could argue and demand and errata for it. While RAI it is 100% how it is meant to be.

I, of course, agree that there is clear intentionality displayed by this text, in a couple of different senses. But, if we are to take the glossary definitions as "word of god", as it was initially claimed we shouldn't, then this is a place where we run into some serious problems. If we are to go literal here, it doesn't actually matter whether reflex half is defined. Give it a full and rigorous definition, and we still, going by the glossary, need an attack roll. Part of my point, really. Additional qualities never remove the need for that one specific quality. So, we have to improvise. We have to say, "No, they just meant this kind of attack," even though the glossary never says anything like that. Or we have to largely ignore the glossary, instead using our broad understanding of what an attack should be. In any case, the glossary definition isn't particularly helpful, and can in fact confound our understanding of RAW.




The core rules definition of "Saving Throws" is very clear about handling anything or any effect that would trigger a saving throw as an attack, going so far as to name Fireball as an example of something being an attack, while not following the core description of attacks.
First, where? I'm looking through the magic section, and I can't seem to find a place that sets forth that connection. Second, that really seems to support the original point, that the glossary definitions of things sometimes explicitly contradict definitions and rules elsewhere. I mean, we could argue some specific saving throw attack definition to override the general of the glossary, but that is, returning to the first thing, not something immediately apparent, especially if we're to intend for people to take their rules information from the glossary.


Instead we (as participants on forums) should focus more on "Rules as Actually Applied" or "Rules as Commonly Understood," using a "Reasonable DM" standard. As part of that, discussing what the text actually says can be very useful (and in fact necessary). It's not sufficient, and should be clearly labeled and dispassionately analyzed. Attempts at power-mongering or munchkinry fail at this step, even if they're allowed by "RAW."
This, again, just doesn't work all that well. People apply and understand rules really differently. Some tables make use of the most absurd stuff out there. Some follow the exact RAW incredibly closely. Stepping away from RAW often means stepping towards one forum participant and away from another. Even where ambiguities exist, we don't gain that much value by not saying, "Yeah, that rule is ambiguous, so do what you want with it," and instead saying, "This forum has arbitrarily decided to rule this thing this way, somehow." The closest thing to what you're talking about is RACSD (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?240218-quot-Common-Sense-quot-approach-to-rules-(RACSD)), rules as common sense dictates, but that thread had real limits in terms of capacity to seriously influence the way we parse rules.


To use a legal metaphor (because I find the law has the best tools for close analysis of rules text): We are judges of equity. First we determine what is required by the law. This must be done without regard for "making sense" unless not doing so would lead to an absurdity[1]. The rules are the rules. Then we (at the level of the individual table) decide what is best (most fun for all, since this is a game) in a particular case. This can include completely ignoring the text, but only applies to that particular case and isn't precedent for other cases.
There's just way too much absurdity naturally and unambiguously present in the game to use that as a standard. D&D, of course, is not real life. Sometimes really weird stuff, game breaking stuff, happens.


My verdict: the text is ambiguous. Chose one option and go with it.
Indeed so. Meaning there is no possible forum-wide resolution to the issue. I can choose an option and go with it, absolutely, but


These are the class of things where the text isn't really the controlling bit. A few notes about the "standard" wish loop as I understand it: you have to be lawful evil to do it and doing so is a lawful evil act. Thus for a cleric to do so is risky unless they're already lawful evil. Anyone else of non-evil alignment should also be very displeased with the wish looper. It's enslavement of the worst kind.
I mean, it's a lawful evil act in the sense that you have to be lawful evil to do it, if you're using a candle. If we're using that approach, it's also a lawful good act if you're lawful good, which kinda defeats the idea that this is an intrinsically evil sort of thing (enslaving demons is evil, and enslaving angels is good, I suppose). Planar binding is a more typical method in any case, I think.


You also pay the 1000 XP cost for casting Gate using a Candle of Invocation as nothing about the candle removes that cost ("allows the owner to cast gate", not "casts gate itself").
Not sure on that one, but if so then only once, I think.


Doing this also is going to (at least if I were the DM) piss off a bunch of lawful evil and very powerful creatures.
Maybe. But you are, at this point, the owner of an arbitrarily large amount of cash, so these very powerful CR 8 creatures might not be all that threatening.


You're also limited to the safe effects of the wishes (which are still strong).
Given that they include magic items of any cost, they are indeed quite strong.



Wall of salt requires a buyer. Economy breaking (like so many other theoretical abuses) requires a complicit or push-over DM. These pass step one (the text is fine) but step 2 (judging equity) fails hard. If asked about them, I would point out the flaws (listed above) but say "The text allows it, but no reasonable DM should allow it in a game unless everyone's ok with that and the consequences."
The cool thing about the maneuver is that salt is a trade good, meaning that it can serve as substitute for cash. You also don't need to push that much of the stuff, cause it's weirdly expensive.


Equity (making the game fun) is step two.
This seems like a particularly bad standard. I don't have access to what makes the game fun for any particular group. And, again, some super rules legal stuff is incredibly powerful, meaning equitable. There exist contextual standards for the operation of the game, but I don't think those can or should cross over into the standards for parsing the game.


I don't have access to the text of IHS since it's not in the SRD, so I can't be more specific about that particular example.
The pertinent text is, "When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds. That effect ends immediately." The short version is that condition is an undefined term within the context of the game, meaning that we default to standard English, which means, in turn, that things in a broad sense can be ended. The long version goes on for about 10 to 20 pages of arguments.


No, but it counts as threatening it, certainly, so the bonus still applies and it breaks instantly as soon as you shoot the fireball.
Maybe, unless you, again, default to the glossary definition of terms. "Threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space." The glossary is weird sometimes. The evasion example is better, in any case.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This, again, just doesn't work all that well. People apply and understand rules really differently. Some tables make use of the most absurd stuff out there. Some follow the exact RAW incredibly closely. Stepping away from RAW often means stepping towards one forum participant and away from another. Even where ambiguities exist, we don't gain that much value by not saying, "Yeah, that rule is ambiguous, so do what you want with it," and instead saying, "This forum has arbitrarily decided to rule this thing this way, somehow." The closest thing to what you're talking about is RACSD (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?240218-quot-Common-Sense-quot-approach-to-rules-(RACSD)), rules as common sense dictates, but that thread had real limits in terms of capacity to seriously influence the way we parse rules.


So present the options and their consequences and leave the final verdict up to the DM in question. Don't portray what is, in essence, a collective opinion of a tiny subset of people as "the rules" and give the impression that anyone who disagrees is somehow wrong about the rules (and is, in essence, cheating).



There's just way too much absurdity naturally and unambiguously present in the game to use that as a standard. D&D, of course, is not real life. Sometimes really weird stuff, game breaking stuff, happens.


I'm sorry? Doing what is the most fun for a particular table is impractical somehow? I don't get it. I am suggesting that we try to find and suggest patches to the absurdities that exist and present those as options, allowing a DM or table to make the call on what's most fun for them. By the way--real life legal battles are way weirder than anything I've ever seen at the table, gnomes and dragons included. I've heard it said that real life is the most improbable setting out there. Crazy stuff happens routinely.



I mean, it's a lawful evil act in the sense that you have to be lawful evil to do it, if you're using a candle. If we're using that approach, it's also a lawful good act if you're lawful good, which kinda defeats the idea that this is an intrinsically evil sort of thing (enslaving demons is evil, and enslaving angels is good, I suppose). Planar binding is a more typical method in any case, I think.


No, it's a lawful evil act because efreeti are lawful evil and thus casting gate (or planar binding) to summon one is a lawful evil act (by its own text).


Note: When you use a calling spell such as gate to call an air, chaotic, earth, evil, fire, good, lawful, or water creature, it becomes a spell of that type.

Doing so repeatedly will certainly alter your alignment in that direction. Note that you have to use a lawful evil candle (and be lawful evil) to summon an efreeti--the gate can only call creatures of that same alignment. Thus it's a lawful evil act by strict text to cast gate to summon an efreeti.
I guess you could summon a Solar (the only angel I could find that can cast wish), but that's CR 23, so you might be in trouble if a legion of angels shows up on your doorstep. Binding one and forcing it to cast wish for you for selfish reasons is (although not by virtue of the spell itself, but by the meaning of the word evil) a hideously evil act. Solars also only have a single wish, so no looping. Dunno about other creatures with wish, those are the two I found mentioned in the context of wish looping.



Not sure on that one, but if so then only once, I think.

The cost's on gate. Thus each time you use a candle to cast gate (so once per 2 effective wishes, the third being used to get another candle) you're losing 1k XP. Not a huge cost compared to wish directly, but still...



Maybe. But you are, at this point, the owner of an arbitrarily large amount of cash, so these very powerful CR 8 creatures might not be all that threatening.

Money doesn't help much when a portal to elemental fire could open under you (or anyone you might possibly care about, anywhere) at any time. And they're not necessarily only CR 8--they have buddies and masters who can contribute. Can you take a prince of elemental fire at this point? After only two wishes (since he's likely to go home and report this to his boss pretty darn quick)? Very few evil (or good for that matter) things like to be coerced. Evil things (being selfish and all) especially don't like to be forced to do things for other people without getting anything out of it.



Given that they include magic items of any cost, they are indeed quite strong.


Agreed.



The cool thing about the maneuver is that salt is a trade good, meaning that it can serve as substitute for cash. You also don't need to push that much of the stuff, cause it's weirdly expensive.


That's an absurdity. Still, you can't buy more stuff than people have, no matter how much cash or cash-equivalent you have.



This seems like a particularly bad standard. I don't have access to what makes the game fun for any particular group. And, again, some super rules legal stuff is incredibly powerful, meaning equitable. There exist contextual standards for the operation of the game, but I don't think those can or should cross over into the standards for parsing the game.

Ok, I have no idea what these sentences mean. Equity is about justice (in the game context that's fun). Each group has to decide that for themselves. The text matters, but is not controlling on anyone and should not be used to promote a sense of entitlement.



The pertinent text is, "When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds. That effect ends immediately." The short version is that condition is an undefined term within the context of the game, meaning that we default to standard English, which means, in turn, that things in a broad sense can be ended. The long version goes on for about 10 to 20 pages of arguments.


That, to me, is sophistry and munchkinry a la Humpty Dumpty from Alice in Wonderland ("Words mean what I want them to mean"). Absurd results of interpretation should be avoided. Whatever "condition" means, it shouldn't be implied to mean things that create absurdities. Notably, in later editions they fixed that issue. 5th edition has an appendix that lists all the conditions used in the text. Others can of course be added by specific beating general, but an ability to end a "condition affecting you" would default to that list. If I were DMing, I'd compile a similar list.

Note that the SRD has a section with a list of conditions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm)--by expressio unuis est exclusio alterius (https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/expressio%20unius%20est%20exclusio%20alterius) I would limit the list of conditions endable by IHS to ones found on that list, as that's the sane thing to do and almost certainly what was intended for the ability in the first place. I recognize that others may differ though.



Maybe, unless you, again, default to the glossary definition of terms. "Threaten: To be able to attack in melee without moving from your current space." The glossary is weird sometimes. The evasion example is better, in any case.

But that glossary definition can't grammatically work there. The phrasing is "actions that threaten." That definition puts "threaten" as a state, not something that actions can do. Thus the only sense that even kinda works is the normal sense.

[eggynack]

So present the options and their consequences and leave the final verdict up to the DM in question. Don't portray what is, in essence, a collective opinion of a tiny subset of people as "the rules" and give the impression that anyone who disagrees is somehow wrong about the rules (and is, in essence, cheating).
But a lot of these things do have an underlying objective truth to them. I'm not going to call someone out for cheating for using different rules, but I see no reason whatsoever to modify my parsing of the rules, or discussion thereof, on the basis of arbitrary tables.



I'm sorry? Doing what is the most fun for a particular table is impractical somehow? I don't get it. I am suggesting that we try to find and suggest patches to the absurdities that exist and present those as options, allowing a DM or table to make the call on what's most fun for them. By the way--real life legal battles are way weirder than anything I've ever seen at the table, gnomes and dragons included. I've heard it said that real life is the most improbable setting out there. Crazy stuff happens routinely.
Doing what is fun for a particular table is practical. Discussing things under the assumption of a vast universe of tables which has a massive variety of opinions is decidedly impractical.



No, it's a lawful evil act because efreeti are lawful evil and thus casting gate (or planar binding) to summon one is a lawful evil act (by its own text).

Doing so repeatedly will certainly alter your alignment in that direction. Note that you have to use a lawful evil candle (and be lawful evil) to summon an efreeti--the gate can only call creatures of that same alignment. Thus it's a lawful evil act by strict text to cast gate to summon an efreeti.
Not what I was saying. It's technically an evil act, but my point was that it's decidedly not an evil act on the basis of enslavement. It's an evil act because you're channeling evil energy.


I guess you could summon a Solar (the only angel I could find that can cast wish), but that's CR 23, so you might be in trouble if a legion of angels shows up on your doorstep.
Noble djinni is a pretty good pick along these lines.


Binding one and forcing it to cast wish for you for selfish reasons is (although not by virtue of the spell itself, but by the meaning of the word evil) a hideously evil act.
There's not much textual support for that view, I don't think, especially because it's a decidedly short term thing.


Solars also only have a single wish, so no looping. Dunno about other creatures with wish, those are the two I found mentioned in the context of wish looping.
You could always just wish up a ring of three wishes which is imbued with a large quantity of XP for further wishes.


The cost's on gate. Thus each time you use a candle to cast gate (so once per 2 effective wishes, the third being used to get another candle) you're losing 1k XP. Not a huge cost compared to wish directly, but still...
As above, you're not necessarily making repeated use of the candle.


Money doesn't help much when a portal to elemental fire could open under you (or anyone you might possibly care about, anywhere) at any time. And they're not necessarily only CR 8--they have buddies and masters who can contribute. Can you take a prince of elemental fire at this point? After only two wishes (since he's likely to go home and report this to his boss pretty darn quick)? Very few evil (or good for that matter) things like to be coerced. Evil things (being selfish and all) especially don't like to be forced to do things for other people without getting anything out of it.
Seems kinda far-fetched that a creature would have instantaneous access to way more powerful creatures, or to powers significantly beyond what they can actually do. Is there any real basis for thinking that the efreeti will have more than just a few other comparable creatures on call, and even then only after a decent amount of time?



That's an absurdity. Still, you can't buy more stuff than people have, no matter how much cash or cash-equivalent you have.
Casters generally have pretty good access to places to buy stuff. If there exists a place where stuff is, a decently high level caster will usually have access to it by some means. Wizards especially.


Ok, I have no idea what these sentences mean. Equity is about justice (in the game context that's fun). Each group has to decide that for themselves. The text matters, but is not controlling on anyone and should not be used to promote a sense of entitlement.
But if every group is deciding this for themselves, why am I making assumptions about those decisions, or altering my discussions on the basis of those arbitrary decisions.



Note that the SRD has a section with a list of conditions (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm)--by expressio unuis est exclusio alterius (https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/expressio%20unius%20est%20exclusio%20alterius) I would limit the list of conditions endable by IHS to ones found on that list, as that's the sane thing to do and almost certainly what was intended for the ability in the first place. I recognize that others may differ though.

The fun part is, that list doesn't work at all. Recall, the text says, "Spell, effect, or other condition," not, "Spell, effect, or condition." This means that spells are themselves conditions by definition. That list does not contain spells, so it could not possibly constitute the totality of conditions. Set this alongside the fact that the condition does not define itself as a complete list of conditions, and it's pretty clear that an attempt to curtail IHS by way of this list does not hang together in a rules sense.


But that glossary definition can't grammatically work there. The phrasing is "actions that threaten." That definition puts "threaten" as a state, not something that actions can do. Thus the only sense that even kinda works is the normal sense.
I'm talking about the part of charm person that does phrase threaten as a state. After all, that is the same part that has the attack line. In particular, " If the creature is currently being threatened or attacked..." Also, the glossary definition could have application in an action sense. If I move close to an enemy, then that is an action that causes me to threaten them. I'm not entirely sure why we're still on the charm person thing, in any case. I've already provided two way better examples. I don't need everything to conflict with the glossary definition of attack. Just some things.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm only going to respond to a few things here. I think that in main we'll have to agree to disagree and will probably not respond further on specific examples. The point I care about is up top, the more specific situation responses are in spoilers.

Looking to the law for help
This whole debate reminds me of nothing more than the admiralty law (gold fringe)/sovereign citizen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement) kooks. Their primary tactic is to make claims amounting to the idea that including certain "magic words" in documents can remove the jurisdiction of courts over them (and thus remove them from any legal consequence). The arguments used in these RAW debates are very similar in spirit, if not in detail to the kooks' arguments and those arguments have been shut down hard at every opportunity. Trying such tactics in court is a good way to get hit with contempt of court and (at minimum) lose your case.

Turns out courts don't parse the wording of contracts and laws the same way we do rules. They look first at the "plain meaning" (what the words say if you read them on the surface as an average citizen) and then (only if there is ambiguity) apply canons of construction--rules for reading. I've spoilered a list from wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_interpretation) of canons commonly used. For "statute" read "rule" and for "legislature" read "game designer." My comments are in red.


Plain meaning
When writing statutes, the legislature intends to use ordinary English words in their ordinary senses. The United States Supreme Court discussed the plain meaning rule in Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917), reasoning "t is elementary that the meaning of a statute must, in the first instance, be sought in the language in which the act is framed, and if that is plain... the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms." And if a statute's language is plain and clear, the Court further warned that "the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion." Emphasis added

Rule against surplusage
Where one reading of a statute would make one or more parts of the statute redundant and another reading would avoid the redundancy, the other reading is preferred.

Eiusdem generis ("of the same kinds, class, or nature")
When a list of two or more specific descriptors is followed by more general descriptors, the otherwise wide meaning of the general descriptors must be restricted to the same class, if any, of the specific words that precede them. For example, where "cars, motor bikes, motor powered vehicles" are mentioned, the word "vehicles" would be interpreted in a limited sense (therefore vehicles cannot be interpreted as including airplanes). So "spells, effects, and other conditions" must be interpreted as being tightly bound to "things that act like spells and similar effects (ie Ex/Su abilities).

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others")
Items not on the list are impliedly assumed not to be covered by the statute or a contract term.[12] However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or "such as." This one alone narrows the scope of many rules and prevents the "but it doesn't say I can't" defense.

In pari materia ("upon the same matter or subject")
When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter. If you're confused about attacking, look at other sections on attacking, not at unrelated spells that simply use the same word.

Noscitur a sociis ("a word is known by the company it keeps")
When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute. Read in context of the ability/specific rule. The same word used in different contexts may mean different things.

Reddendo singula singulis or "referring each to each"
"When a will says "I devise and bequeath all my real and personal property to A", the principle of reddendo singula singulis would apply as if it read "I devise all my real property, and bequeath all my personal property, to A", since the word devise is appropriate only to real property and the term bequeath is appropriate only to personal property." That is, apply words to where they have sensible application, not to where they don't.

Generalia specialibus non derogant ("the general does not detract from the specific")
Described in The Vera Cruz[14] as: "Now if anything be certain it is this, that where there are general words in a later Act capable of reasonable and sensible application without extending them to subjects specially dealt with by earlier legislation, you are not to hold that earlier legislation indirectly repealed, altered, or derogated from merely by force of such general words, without any evidence of a particular intention to do so." This means that if a later law and an earlier law are potentially—but not necessarily—in conflict, courts will adopt the reading that does not result in an implied repeal of the earlier statute. Lawmaking bodies usually need to be explicit if they intend to repeal an earlier law. For one rule to override another,
the overriding must be explicit unless there's no construction that keeps both in force (i.e. with an errata).


I mention these because the interpretation of ambiguous text that is binding on parties has a long history and many tools have been built up. To me, reading and understanding game rules is very little different in methodology from reading and understanding legislative statues. It seems sensible to me to reuse methods that work already--why reinvent the wheel?

Note that some of the canons are explicitly part of the rules: Generalia specialibus non derogant is a different reading of "specific beats general" focusing on the fact despite the presence of an exception, in all other situations the general rule still applies.

My intent in asking the question was to try to determine if such canons already existed in text somewhere before trying to (collectively) come up with a similar set that might be useful for interpreting rules and finding minimal patches for things that we all agree are absurd/dysfunctional if read the way that they commonly are now. I can see now that there are no such accepted canons in the text.




Not what I was saying. It's technically an evil act, but my point was that it's decidedly not an evil act on the basis of enslavement. It's an evil act because you're channeling evil energy.

There's not much textual support for that view, I don't think, especially because it's a decidedly short term thing.


You do realize that you're literally kidnapping someone and forcing them (magically) to work for you for no benefit to them? I can see no context in which this is not pure evil. Compulsion of another thinking being against their will for selfish reasons. That's the non-sexual equivalent of forcible rape. I mean that seriously. If you're doing this repeatedly or without [I]serious extenuating circumstances you're evil, no matter who or what you're compelling. Once, to save the world, maybe. Doing it to get rich? Not a chance. Full stop. As a DM, I would not countenance this behavior at my table and as a player would walk away from any group that tolerated it on moral grounds. I doubt I'm the only one.

This kind of thing is best handled by recognizing that only very few groups will tolerate it. It's game breaking by definition. Accepting such things should be flagged as the exception with big disclaimers that most DMs/groups won't tolerate such shenanigans. Do so at your own risk, so to speak.



The fun part is, that list doesn't work at all. Recall, the text says, "Spell, effect, or other condition," not, "Spell, effect, or condition." This means that spells are themselves conditions by definition. That list does not contain spells, so it could not possibly constitute the totality of conditions. Set this alongside the fact that the condition does not define itself as a complete list of conditions, and it's pretty clear that an attempt to curtail IHS by way of this list does not hang together in a rules sense.


Right, but if you take this list, add in spells and (non-spell) effects from Ex or Su abilities you have a complete enough list for all but the most pedantic. Not to mention that "the sun" is not a condition affecting you. It's a thing. You might (at a super-relaxed table) get away with "I stop the sun from shining on me" and end up in a puddle of darkness a la the creature from OOTS, but that's about it.

For me, the jump from "ok, so condition isn't defined" to "so it means anything I can shoehorn into looking like a literal interpretation of the dictionary definition" is one I cannot take. Instead, look at how the word is used in context. We know it has to do with spells and effects that are similar to spells. There are other things called conditions in the text. I can possible see extending it to things that act like those conditions but are not called out as such by name. Beyond that? You're off the deep end in my opinion.

[eggynack]

You do realize that you're literally kidnapping someone and forcing them (magically) to work for you for no benefit to them? I can see no context in which this is not pure evil. Compulsion of another thinking being against their will for selfish reasons. That's the non-sexual equivalent of forcible rape. I mean that seriously. If you're doing this repeatedly or without serious extenuating circumstances you're evil, no matter who or what you're compelling. Once, to save the world, maybe. Doing it to get rich? Not a chance. Full stop. As a DM, I would not countenance this behavior at my table and as a player would walk away from any group that tolerated it on moral grounds. I doubt I'm the only one.
But the weird thing is, not only is kidnapping an angel and forcing them to work for you not evil by the rules. It's actively and cosmically good. Doing this makes you more Good. I think the only conclusion is that the angel and the universe isn't reading this the same way you are. When we start getting into the part where you use lesser geas to cut away at the angel's charisma, then there's something to talk about, but as long as we're using the spell in a straightforward more or less intended way, I don't think the game sees a problem alignment-wise. If it did, then the spell would be, y'know, evil. You're arguing that this is essentially intrinsically evil, that neutral circumstances mean evil, and the game disagrees. Oddly enough, I think my perspective on this matches up better with RAI.


This kind of thing is best handled by recognizing that only very few groups will tolerate it. It's game breaking by definition. Accepting such things should be flagged as the exception with big disclaimers that most DMs/groups won't tolerate such shenanigans. Do so at your own risk, so to speak.
Sure, I guess. Here's the way I see it though. These are true things about the game. They work according to the rules. From there, each person gets to do what they want. Intrinsic in the explanation of any trick or game break is, "This is what this trick does." Sometimes, what a trick does is grant virtually infinite access to items, and sometimes what a trick does is make you deal a whole bunch of damage. It's not my job, or my responsibility, to tell people whether or not to accomplish either of those things. I tell them about it, I tell them that it works, and what happens from there is exactly whatever the person hearing about the trick wants. Which is just fine, in my opinion. Maybe sometimes I might say, "Just in case you weren't aware, that thing you're talking about is really really powerful," but I don't exactly have some kinda onus to do that.


Right, but if you take this list, add in spells and (non-spell) effects from Ex or Su abilities you have a complete enough list for all but the most pedantic. Not to mention that "the sun" is not a condition affecting you. It's a thing. You might (at a super-relaxed table) get away with "I stop the sun from shining on me" and end up in a puddle of darkness a la the creature from OOTS, but that's about it.
That doesn't really make sense as a self consistent reading. Either conditions are that list, or that list is conditions. It doesn't add up to say that that list is somehow supposed to be all conditions that aren't spells or effects. Nothing in the text implies that. As for the specific sun example, the specifics of phrasing and impact are more complicated than I've made it out to be. It's entirely possible that certain things are off-limits, in terms of what you can accomplish semantically, but there's a whole hell of a lot that you can definitely do. It's a really weird maneuver.


For me, the jump from "ok, so condition isn't defined" to "so it means anything I can shoehorn into looking like a literal interpretation of the dictionary definition" is one I cannot take. Instead, look at how the word is used in context. We know it has to do with spells and effects that are similar to spells.
The context here is literally only, "Spells and effects are both conditions." That context sets basically no limiting factors on what a condition can be.


There are other things called conditions in the text. I can possible see extending it to things that act like those conditions but are not called out as such by name. Beyond that? You're off the deep end in my opinion.
There are ridiculously massive arguments relating to this topic. You're getting a super short synopsis about the general nature of the trick and the barest gist of how it operates. I have no interest in spending another dozen pages discussing all the weirdness surrounding iron heart surge and the ways to parse it, but if you want to know about it there are, again, a ton of threads out there to read. Until then, gotta say, the idea that I'm off the deep end because of my lengthily considered position from someone who just heard about the maneuver itself just now is not all that meaningful to me.

[daremetoidareyo]

I know how I read the rules. Many inconsistencies stem from the modularity of all of the different parts spread across the splats and relying on the rules themselves lead to absurd conclusions. Things to check for during optimization:

Action type (Ex, Su SLA)
Damage type (ability or HP)
shared use of a skill - cross reference with class features and feats
attack type (ranged projectile melee improvised touch ranged touch)
Use of social skills in combat,
Use of combat skills out of combat
Target a square
Can you use this ability on an ally to make something good come from something bad?
types and subtypes
spell descriptors
What didn't the creator intend? but is totally possible. Optimize that.

Then you just rattle the cages a bit to see what can slip by on any of those fronts.

[RoboEmperor]

But the weird thing is, not only is kidnapping an angel and forcing them to work for you not evil by the rules. It's actively and cosmically good. Doing this makes you more Good. I think the only conclusion is that the angel and the universe isn't reading this the same way you are. When we start getting into the part where you use lesser geas to cut away at the angel's charisma, then there's something to talk about, but as long as we're using the spell in a straightforward more or less intended way, I don't think the game sees a problem alignment-wise. If it did, then the spell would be, y'know, evil. You're arguing that this is essentially intrinsically evil, that neutral circumstances mean evil, and the game disagrees. Oddly enough, I think my perspective on this matches up better with RAI.

Planar Binding an angel is a "Good" spell, but magic circle against good is "Evil", so kind of a mixed bag. You can try to thwart this by using Magic Circle against Law/Chaos, but seeing how you cannot call an angel of a specific alignment, 1/3 chance the circle is not gonna work on the angel.

[Necroticplague]

Planar Binding an angel is a "Good" spell, but magic circle against good is "Evil", so kind of a mixed bag. You can try to thwart this by using Magic Circle against Law/Chaos, but seeing how you cannot call an angel of a specific alignment, 1/3 chance the circle is not gonna work on the angel.

You can call a specific type of Angel, though. So you can use Circle against Law to snag an Archon, and Circle against Chaos for eladrin.

[eggynack]

Planar Binding an angel is a "Good" spell, but magic circle against good is "Evil", so kind of a mixed bag. You can try to thwart this by using Magic Circle against Law/Chaos, but seeing how you cannot call an angel of a specific alignment, 1/3 chance the circle is not gonna work on the angel.
A noble djinni is always chaotic good, so you're pretty safe there. That is pretty weird though, that you're generally casting two spells of totally opposed alignment to bind something. My main point, in any case, is that binding a creature does not seem to be an intrinsically evil thing in and of itself.

[Florian]

A noble djinni is always chaotic good, so you're pretty safe there. That is pretty weird though, that you're generally casting two spells of totally opposed alignment to bind something. My main point, in any case, is that binding a creature does not seem to be an intrinsically evil thing in and of itself.

I think you´re falling pray to a apparently common stance on this forum, discarding the fluff as irrelevant and disconnected from the crunch. Compare the actual description of the Planar Ally and Planar Binding spell lines against each other. The arcane version can only ever be a hostile act, as you "lure, trap and try to force" something into service. Comparing the difference of the two spell lines is important, because they more or less are the same, with one working on opposing, the other with matching alignments.

Edit: To finish our prior conversation: It´s in "How to play", not the glossary.

[RoboEmperor]

I think you´re falling pray to a apparently common stance on this forum, discarding the fluff as irrelevant and disconnected from the crunch. Compare the actual description of the Planar Ally and Planar Binding spell lines against each other. The arcane version can only ever be a hostile act, as you "lure, trap and try to force" something into service. Comparing the difference of the two spell lines is important, because they more or less are the same, with one working on opposing, the other with matching alignments.

Edit: To finish our prior conversation: It´s in "How to play", not the glossary.

Planar Binding can be nonhostile. You just pay the guy and ask him to do something in line with his alignment. Celestials in particular don't even need to be trapped for this unless in your world they are murderhobos.

The spell description clearly states it can be both consensual service and forced service.

Fiendish Codex II has indepth explanation of getting consensual service from devils. Monster Manual IV or V has a Devil that actively hijacks Greater Planar Binding spells to make a deal.

edit: Complete Mage/Arcane, and Dungeonscape clearly states you can planar bind creatures into mundane traps, so you don't even need magic circle against good to bind a celestial, so in the end planar binding is a "Good" spell because you are increasing the amount of good in the world, by bringing in a good creature who does a good task to increase good in the world all voluntarily.

[eggynack]

I think you´re falling pray to a apparently common stance on this forum, discarding the fluff as irrelevant and disconnected from the crunch. Compare the actual description of the Planar Ally and Planar Binding spell lines against each other. The arcane version can only ever be a hostile act, as you "lure, trap and try to force" something into service. Comparing the difference of the two spell lines is important, because they more or less are the same, with one working on opposing, the other with matching alignments.
It's admittedly somewhat odd, but I don't see much cause to see this as some sort of high scale evil when the game itself doesn't apparently see it as such. The game is kinda weird about aligned stuff, but it's not like the idea of aligning spells was out of mind when they were writing this spell. Is it a great thing to do? Probably not, but it, in and of itself, should not be alignment shifting.

Edit:
To finish our prior conversation: It´s in "How to play", not the glossary.
Which page is this, exactly? Can't seem to find something labelled in that fashion.

Double-edit: Ah, under dexterity. Alrighty.

[Florian]

@someonenoone11:

You´re committing the error to try to make the specific into the general. Yes, there are exceptions that modify how the spell works, but then we´re not talking about the same spell anymore. Including the exception would turn "Planar Binding" into "Planar Binding modified by A, B and C", which are basically two very different spells then.
Notice that leaving that unspoken leads to a lack of precision in communication and is amongst the root causes of why some "RAW" debates turn into heated verbal fistfights, as far as I see it.

[logic_error]

Anyone claiming that capturing and kidnapping a solar for wishes is a Good act is mistaken. DM reserves full right for you to face consequences despite how you choose to interpret the rules text.

[RoboEmperor]

@someonenoone11:

You´re committing the error to try to make the specific into the general. Yes, there are exceptions that modify how the spell works, but then we´re not talking about the same spell anymore. Including the exception would turn "Planar Binding" into "Planar Binding modified by A, B and C", which are basically two very different spells then.
Notice that leaving that unspoken leads to a lack of precision in communication and is amongst the root causes of why some "RAW" debates turn into heated verbal fistfights, as far as I see it.

I never thought I'd be arguing on the side of paid service for planar binding @_@. Life is funny.


You can attempt to compel the creature to perform a service by describing the service and perhaps offering some sort of reward. You make a Charisma check opposed by the creature’s Charisma check. The check is assigned a bonus of +0 to +6 based on the nature of the service and the reward. If the creature wins the opposed check, it refuses service.

The Fiendish Codex II does 0 modifications to the spell. It does not turn it into "Planar Binding modified by A B and C". It expands upon the bolded part of the quote.

Planar Binding can be forced slavery (+0 Cha, and the creature might seek vengeance) or consensual (up to +6 Cha, no vengeance, creature might even give his name to you for further service).

For example, if a Balor started a small demonic invasion and is about to slaughter an entire village, if you planar bind a planetar, I'm pretty damn sure you are going to get +6 charisma bonus to the check, require 0 rewards, the planetar will not come seeking vengeance later, and the spell is "good".


Anyone claiming that capturing and kidnapping a solar for wishes is a Good act is mistaken. DM reserves full right for you to face consequences despite how you choose to interpret the rules text.

By RAW, calling a "solar" is a good spell, but making it do anything but stop tremendous evil would probably make you evil. Just because the spell is "Good" doesn't mean you can't do evil things with that spell. I think the restriction is in place so that Evil Clerics cannot call Solars and Good Clerics cannot call Fiends. Same with summon monster, good clerics cannot summon fiendish creatures to fight evil creatures and evil clerics cannot summon celestial creatures.

If I summon a celestial dog and make it kill a child, that would make me evil even though the spell is "good". Spell alignment and your alignment are separate things.

If I was DM and the players planar bind solars for wishes, I would say that's evil too.

[Florian]

@_@. Life is funny.

What´s really funny is that we talk about an AD&D legacy spell and a common rule that has proven to cause problem with a lot of spells, especially old AD&D-based on: Spells adapting descriptors based on apparent context. That´s how we end up with word stuff like magic circle against evil being "Good", even when used by a Diabolist to force a Devil into service, or the situation with Planar Binding, the Solar and the "Good" descriptor. That is simply a design error.

[eggynack]

By RAW, calling a "solar" is a good spell, but making it do anything but stop tremendous evil would probably make you evil.
I don't buy this. If you make it do something evil somehow? Sure, that's evil. But if you take something with no evil inherent to it (planar binding for a solar), and use it for something non-evil (creating a fancy watch for you to wear so you look super cool), then I don't think the composite can really be evil.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't buy this. If you make it do something evil somehow? Sure, that's evil. But if you take something with no evil inherent to it (planar binding for a solar), and use it for something non-evil (creating a fancy watch for you to wear so you look super cool), then I don't think the composite can really be evil.

Evil isn't just a mechanical descriptor that is added to spells and actions. It's described in the books. You're a) taking away someone's free will if even for a time, b) forcing them to work for you without consent, and c) doing so for selfish reasons (to "look super cool"). That's textbook (and PHB) evil. Evil includes doing things for selfish reasons and/or without regard for the good of others. That's a perfect example. The fact that you're doing it to an embodiment of pure good makes it even more horrific (at least to me).

[RoboEmperor]

I don't buy this. If you make it do something evil somehow? Sure, that's evil. But if you take something with no evil inherent to it (planar binding for a solar), and use it for something non-evil (creating a fancy watch for you to wear so you look super cool), then I don't think the composite can really be evil.

Depends.

If solars are hard at work, giving everything they got at keeping the fiends at bay, and you waste their time and resources (1/day wish) for something trivial like a fancy watch, that ends up being "evil". Because you're selfish and intentionally hindering the celestials that are preventing the material plane from being conquered by fiends all for a stupid watch.

If however, solars never use their 1/day wish, and using it for your fancy watch has little to no repercussions, then sure, not evil. I'm picturing these solars as those that just hang around beside their deity as bodyguards, doing nothing special.

[eggynack]

Evil isn't just a mechanical descriptor that is added to spells and actions. It's described in the books. You're a) taking away someone's free will if even for a time, b) forcing them to work for you without consent, and c) doing so for selfish reasons (to "look super cool"). That's textbook (and PHB) evil. Evil includes doing things for selfish reasons and/or without regard for the good of others. That's a perfect example. The fact that you're doing it to an embodiment of pure good makes it even more horrific (at least to me).
When applied to actions that aren't straightforward mechanical objects, looking beyond the books may be necessary. But several of the things you're describing are straightforwardly intrinsic to the spell, and the spell apparently sees itself as significantly less evil than, say, animate dead. Maybe the watch isn't the right example, but your points a and b can't really factor in and make sense with what we know. I definitely don't think you have to be doing something super good to make this not evil.

[Necroticplague]

Evil isn't just a mechanical descriptor that is added to spells and actions. It's described in the books. You're a) taking away someone's free will if even for a time, b) forcing them to work for you without consent, and c) doing so for selfish reasons (to "look super cool"). That's textbook (and PHB) evil. Evil includes doing things for selfish reasons and/or without regard for the good of others. That's a perfect example. The fact that you're doing it to an embodiment of pure good makes it even more horrific (at least to me).
Taking somebody's free will away isn't Evil. After all, Programmed Amnesia and Dominate Person aren't [Evil], and brainwashing them into completely agreeing with your worldview over the course of a year in solitary confinement is actually [Good].

[logic_error]

Taking somebody's free will away isn't Evil. After all, Programmed Amnesia and Dominate Person aren't [Evil], and brainwashing them into completely agreeing with your worldview over the course of a year in solitary confinement is actually [Good].


...

You guys! If course they are not evil if you do it to monsters.


Things like dominate person are un ambiguously evil if done to anyone else.

I am wondering what hoops of logic will you jump to get out of this.

[Forrestfire]

...

You guys! If course they are not evil if you do it to monsters.


Things like dominate person are un ambiguously evil if done to anyone else.

I am wondering what hoops of logic will you jump to get out of this.

The thing to always remember is that in D&D, "Evil" (the cosmic force) is not, necessarily, "evil" (the definition in a given society's outlook on ethics). Certain spells are Evil, in the sense that casting them draws on evil power. They may not be evil, in the sense of causing active harm in certain ways. just look at deathwatch (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/deathwatch.htm), which is an Evil spell (explicitly an Evil Act to cast, that pushes you towards an evil aligntment), but it's... literally just a way to do a quick magical health checkup.

Dominate person is not an Evil spell, but using it may be in many (or most) contexts evil in the ethical sense. Likewise, sanctify the wicked (a year-long torment/isolation/brainwash spell) is unambiguously a Good act in-setting and in-rules, but is decidedly not good by most definitions of morality I've read.

Alignment is weird and inconsistent. But the thing to remember is that in-game, alignment means some very particular things that tend to only tangentially intersect with real-world ethics.

EDIT: Actually, I just checked the Book of Exalted Deeds. In D&D 3.5 at least, dominate person and other mind control effects are not evil acts in and of themselves; they're only Evil (in the game definition) if you use them to force the prisoner to do something also Evil.


Spells such as dominate person, geas, and suggestion allow a caster to control another person, robbing that person of free will. This may not be an inherently evil act, but it certainly carries a tremendous ethical responsibility. Forcing anyone to commit an evil act, of course, is evil. Furthermore, a creature under compulsion should be treated the same as a helpless prisoner, since that creature no longer poses a threat, at least for the duration of the spell. Once an enemy is dominated, for example, he should not be killed, but shown mercy and treated the same as a prisoner who had willingly surrendered.

This is terrifying to me, personally, but only serves to underline how D&D!Good and D&D!Evil tend to not really represent the normal, subjective-morality concepts of "good" and "evil."

[RoboEmperor]

This is terrifying to me, personally, but only serves to underline how D&D!Good and D&D!Evil tend to not really represent the normal, subjective-morality concepts of "good" and "evil."

I don't see a problem with this. They're basically treating dominate on the same level of shackles + manacles. Instead of having an involuntary prisoner in chains and close to you, you use dominate instead and lead him to jail, or his execution as medieval settings love hanging and guillotines.

The description clearly states you using dominate to do anything other than that is potentially evil.

[Florian]

Quite fascinating.

Let´s revisit a prior point in this discussion, that apparently didn't meet much interested: D&D/PF defines "roleplaying game" as a hybrid of "storytelling" and "game", is very explicit about that being the root cause for there being two sets of rules that don´t necessarily match and which of them is the important one. (I also have the feeling that a good number of people have never ever read the DMG or GMG of either edition, else they would be shocked about how RAW is expressly handled in them and we wouldn't have the Oberoni Fallacy as an ongoing excuse to not talk about gms)

So what we talk about is A) the sum of the options that you can gain permission to use during play and B) whether the rules are written in such a way that the options, once "activated", can resolve on its own or needs outside bias.

[Forrestfire]

I don't see a problem with this. They're basically treating dominate on the same level of shackles + manacles. Instead of having an involuntary prisoner in chains and close to you, you use dominate instead and lead him to jail, or his execution as medieval settings love hanging and guillotines.

The description clearly states you using dominate to do anything other than that is potentially evil.

That is fair. Overall, as I said, it's a lot more personal. Casual good guy mind control of the "soft" variety (charm, suggestion, etc) is something I've always found uncomfortable. Dominate effects way less so, since as you said, it's just the equivalent of manacles there, rather than directly overriding someone's thoughts like a charm does.

[Psyren]

Thanks. Not exactly what I'm looking for, but helpful. I'm looking for more general statements, canons of construction if you will. I have a hunch that a root cause of much of the dysfunction handbook entries is reading the words more literally and formally (in the sense of formal logic) than they were intended. I'm trying to track down evidence on either side. I may have to break down and buy a copy of the player's handbook for both 3.5 and Pathfinder to get at the words that aren't carried over into the SRD...

Are there instructions that the definitions in the Glossary are to be read as exclusive and literal (meaning that this is the only meaning of such terms and the definitions given there should be read word-for-word)? Or is it just left up to normal language.

I don't know about anything general, but the PHB has quite a lot of explanatory or example text that didn't make it to the SRD, particularly within the spell entries themselves.