What is RAW?

[qube]

So ... I was having a talk with someone, and it seems (s)he had a ... very different definition of what RAW is. So, I asked to make this thread; but since that didn't happen, I suppose I'm the one making it.

My stance is that RAW is what's written down.


RAW is what's written down.
If it's not written down, it's not RAW (that's not to say it is or isn't possible - it's just not there).
Yes, that makes parts of RAW not usable to play with (for it to work, you need to fill in a lot of gaps with common sense and DM's descresion) - but that transitions it to the rules as they are intented, opposite to the rules how they are written down.

his/her stance is


The PHB specifically lists Do's and Don'ts.
Anything that doesn't violate Do's and Don'ts is RAW.

As we were talking about RAW & something that wasn't written down - this obviously created confusion. So the proposal I made was: If you think I'm trying to BS you what RAW means, feel free to make a thread about it with the simple question: "if a rule isn't written down, but it doesn't contradict with what is written down, is it part of RAW?"
(I continued to note that RAW would end up being quite ... well, wrong, as a lack of violation doesn't limit the stupidity of the rule you can add. Humans haven't 6 ears? Doesn't violate Do's and Don'ts, so it's RAW. )

-----

Ergo, Hello people of the forum :waves hand:

What is RAW?

[Man_Over_Game]

I didn't fully understand your description of what your friend's definition of RAW was. Could you expand on that?

[Kharneth]

RAW is Rules As Written and any rules that are not written are not RAW.

To use your example, it is not against the rules to make a human with 6 ears. Humans having only 2 ears is not a rule.

RAI are not worthless and should not be discarded for RAW in all circumstances. It sounds like your argument is rooted on the assumption that if it's not RAW it's not worth anything, but RAI are useful for precisely when RAW is insufficient, such as when something does not contradict any written rules but also is not necessarily allowed by the rules, either.

This is why all of the rules in D&D are said to be guidelines and why there always has to be a person whose job is to play rules referee.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll be a contrarian.

RAW is an illusion. All non-trivial text requires interpretation. Saying something is "not RAW" is isomorphic to saying "I don't like it" or "I think the rules are otherwise" and is only helpful for winning forum arguments.

The rules were never intended to be read with close parsing, like a legal text. In fact, legal texts weren't designed to be interpreted the way that rules lawyers interpreted 3e-era rules. The rules are a toolkit, a shared default framework for discussion. The only rules that matter are those agreed-upon by the table and implemented. The text doesn't matter. The designers' intent doesn't matter. Unless, of course, those are persuasive to the people who do matter, the players (including the DM).

[PeteNutButter]

To include what isn’t excluded into RAW is preposterous. It’s impossible for any text to be all incompassing. Let’s say the phb did clarify that humans have two ears. Then it has to define what ears are and then define what sound, cartilage, and tissue are etc. The entire concept of language only works on shared assumptions. That obviously extends to any game text.

So something absurd could within RAW, but it is not RAW.

[KorvinStarmast]

What is RAW?
At some point, I have to ask: who cares?

What matters is if you and whomever at the gaming table have fun with the game. One of the D&D 5e devs made the point that the rules are supposed to serve the game.

On a more procedural note, I think this question belongs in the general role playing forum, rather than the D&D 5e forum, but opinions will vary on that I suppose.

[Unoriginal]

RAW is Rules As Written and any rules that are not written are not RAW.

This.

If it's not written, it is not RAW, by definition. Your friend's definition was not correct.

But it's not because it's not RAW that it doesn't exist.

[Man_Over_Game]

What is RAW?
At some point, I have to ask: who cares?

What matters is if you and whomever at the gaming table have fun with the game. One of the D&D 5e devs made the point that the rules are supposed to serve the game.

On a more procedural note, I think this question belongs in the general role playing forum, rather than the D&D 5e forum, but opinions will vary on that I suppose.

In some stuff, like GURPS, the distinction does matter, but with 5E, the developers explicitly want the DM to make judgment calls on stuff to make the game more fun rather than mechanically stable.

For example, RAW, Burning Hands requires two free hands because it really does require touching thumbs and open palms. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/46603/does-burning-hands-really-require-touching-thumbs) Although, if you're an Enlarged Bard grappling something massive, a DM should totally let you blow that Godzilla's face off with Burning Hands.

Also, Tridents are strictly worse than Javelins despite requiring more proficiency and being more expensive. A Scimitar is worth 2.5x more and weights 1.5x more than the shortsword while having the same exact stats.

RAW, you're allowed to ignore RAW. Personally, I think identifying RAW is just a way for a lot of DMs to be either lazy or scared of making changes to what's supposed to be a fluid system. I'm not meaning to direct that at OP, I just see a lot of DMs shy away from certain ideas to avoid taking any kinds of risks. Which is actually really frustrating, since there's not a lot of content for our 5-year-old system.

[KorvinStarmast]

For example, RAW, Burning Hands requires two free hands because it really does require touching thumbs and open palms. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/46603/does-burning-hands-really-require-touching-thumbs) Although, if you're an Enlarged Bard grappling something massive, a DM should totally let you blow that Godzilla's face off with Burning Hands. I like the example you use there.

[Ganymede]

RAW is a rules interpretation philosophy that privileges consistency of result via a strictly literal reading of the rules.

Essentially, its goal is for answers to rules questions to be the same across all gaming tables in order to minimize surprises or see-sawing that might result from a more comprehensive rules interpretation philosophy.

[qube]

I didn't fully understand your description of what your friend's definition of RAW was. Could you expand on that?the example he replied on was about tying shoelaces. I was making a silly example:


If the books never make a mention of tying shoelaces, it's not part of RAW, no matter how stupid it would be the partymembers walk around with open shoes.

With the counter argument being


The PHB specifically lists Do's and Don'ts.
Anything that doesn't violate Do's and Don'ts is RAW.

Because nothing says you can't tie your shoes, you can. The DM cannot say "no, you are not allowed to tie your shoes" without declaring DM fiat.


I'll be a contrarian.

RAW is an illusion. All non-trivial text requires interpretation.

The rules were never intended to be read with close parsing, like a legal text.While I certainly grasp what you're saying, for me, RAW, is only the same as quoting something. And I'm not in the business of claiming that automatically makes it "right" (again, RAW =/= RAI).

But the difference of between our definitions of RAW is significantly larger then wether or not the text is trivial enough that simply reading it doesn't suffice (it's quite the slippery slope, because even simple reading infers a form of interpretation, as many filosephers would point out)


What is RAW?
At some point, I have to ask: who cares?I understand your question & the sentement behind it, but the point of words is to transfer knowledge & meaning. you can't have a decent conversation of the speaker uses one word, and the listener thinks that word means something else.


On a more procedural note, I think this question belongs in the general role playing forum, rather than the D&D 5e forum, but opinions will vary on that I suppose. possibly. it never crossed my mind though
(guess that 3E rule-nitpicking has corrupted my brain so much that I only considered it a D&D thing :smallredface: )

[NaughtyTiger]

I am the other half of this conversation.

We are discussing the definition of RAW: whether it is obeying ONLY the text as written or whether it is NOT disobeying the text as written.


I don't do well with abstract discussions, so I will give one of the examples we are discussing.

The PHB describes the "Action" only in reference to "Combat".
Many spells have a casting time of "1 action".

Qube's interpretation is that: you can't cast a 1 action spell outside of combat, unless you point to a specific rule that says you can.

My interpretation is that: the PHB describes the concept of "Actions". As long as I am not violating a specific rule, then I can cast a spell of "1 Action".

We are not debating whether you can cast a spell, just which interpretation is RAW.

[Nifft]

I'll be a contrarian.

RAW is an illusion. All non-trivial text requires interpretation. Saying something is "not RAW" is isomorphic to saying "I don't like it" or "I think the rules are otherwise" and is only helpful for winning forum arguments.

The rules were never intended to be read with close parsing, like a legal text. In fact, legal texts weren't designed to be interpreted the way that rules lawyers interpreted 3e-era rules. The rules are a toolkit, a shared default framework for discussion. The only rules that matter are those agreed-upon by the table and implemented. The text doesn't matter. The designers' intent doesn't matter. Unless, of course, those are persuasive to the people who do matter, the players (including the DM).

Yeah.

We can probably figure out a gradation of intent and figure out what is directly intended, what is directly excluded, and some of the shades of gray in between those pools of rhetorical light.

In that context, RAW would be the gradations that are most directly supported by the text.

But even there, "most supported" isn't a binary truth. It's just the category that's less ambiguous than the other categories.

[KorvinStarmast]

We are discussing the definition of RAW: whether it is obeying ONLY the text as written or whether it is NOT disobeying the text as written. That misses the point of D&D 5e by a rather wide margin.

I don't do well with abstract discussions, so I will give one of the examples we are discussing.
The PHB describes the "Action" only in reference to "Combat".
Many spells have a casting time of "1 action".

Qube's interpretation is that: you can't cast a 1 action spell outside of combat, unless you point to a specific rule that says you can.

My interpretation is that: the PHB describes the concept of "Actions". As long as I am not violating a specific rule, then I can cast a spell of "1 Action".

We are not debating whether you can cast a spell, just which interpretation is RAW. Why is this important?

Here's an idea: which makes more sense?
(1) That you have to be in deadly danger to cast the fly spell, or
(2) that you can cast it in combat or out?

@qube I can see your point, in re the 3.5 RAW debates being somewhat toxic.

[MaxWilson]

What is RAW?
At some point, I have to ask: who cares?

Sometimes it's useful to draw a distinction between the rules as written and the rules that a sane DM would actually use. For example, before they changed the 5E PHB, it was technically true by the rules as written that you could be standing in the middle of a dark cavern with a lit torch, and you could see all the monsters in the cavern (because you were not heavily-obscured and therefore not blinded) but they couldn't see you (because they were heavily-obscured and therefore blinded). But no sane DM would ever have run the game by those Rules As Written because they are bonkers.

"RAW" is not a compliment. It's like saying, "technically." Some people on these forums use green text to denote it.

For example, when you cast Conjure Animals to summon a creature of CR 2 or lower, you might get a CR 0 seahorse which immediately asphyxiates. In practice this isn't an issue. It's just RAW, not a real problem.

Another example: Warcaster allows you to Polymorph your enemies with your opportunity attack but not your friends.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sometimes it's useful to draw a distinction between the rules as written and the rules that a sane DM would actually use. For example, before they changed the 5E PHB, it was technically true by the rules as written that you could be standing in the middle of a dark cavern with a lit torch, and you could see all the monsters in the cavern (because you were not heavily-obscured and therefore not blinded) but they couldn't see you (because they were heavily-obscured and therefore blinded). But no sane DM would ever have run the game by those Rules As Written because they are bonkers.

"RAW" is not a compliment. It's like saying, "technically." Some people on these forums use green text to denote it.

For example, when you cast Conjure Animals to summon a creature of CR 2 or lower, you might get a CR 0 seahorse which immediately asphyxiates. In practice this isn't an issue. It's just RAW, not a real problem. Thank you for that illustration.

[Unoriginal]

In the RAW, there is nothing about tying shoes. But RAW is not the game.


The game is what happens when the DM and the players play.


In the case of the spells:

Spells taking actions to cast is part of the combat abstraction, which is based around initiative, turns and rounds.

Outside of the combat abstraction, or of situations which similarly use the initiative/turn/round system like chase scenes, actions, bonus actions, and reactions do not apply, because they are not taken into account outside of the combat (or similar situation) abstraction.

It's like asking "how many rounds does it take to climb the castle's wall." Outside of combat (or similar), it takes 0 round, because there is no round outside combat.

That a spell take an action in combat does not matter outside of combat, where the DM just says "alright, you cast your spell", because outside of combat or situations where the initiative order applies, you are not pressed by time enough for how long this particular spell takes to cast to matter.

This is obvious with spells which takes minutes to cast: they're obviously not combat spells, and those casting times are here more as a "take care to not be interrupted during that time/be careful not to lose time by casting this if you're in a hurry" feature.

[NaughtyTiger]

Everyone here agrees that in D&D 5e you are supposed to be able to cast spells outside of combat.
The question posed is: by RAW can you cast 1 Action spells outside of combat?


In the case of the spells:

Spells taking actions to cast is part of the combat abstraction, which is based around initiative, turns and rounds.

Outside of the combat abstraction, or of situations which similarly use the initiative/turn/round system like chase scenes, actions, bonus actions, and reactions do not apply, because they are not taken into account outside of the combat (or similar situation) abstraction.

It's like asking "how many rounds does it take to climb the castle's wall." Outside of combat (or similar), it takes 0 round, because there is no round outside combat.

That a spell take an action in combat does not matter outside of combat, where the DM just says "alright, you cast your spell", because outside of combat or situations where the initiative order applies, you are not pressed by time enough for how long this particular spell takes to cast to matter.

This is obvious with spells which takes minutes to cast: they're obviously not combat spells, and those casting times are here more as a "take care to not be interrupted during that time/be careful not to lose time by casting this if you're in a hurry" feature.

okay the question is what is the definition of RAW, but the answer about casting 1 Action spells outside of a framework when an Action is specifically defined is much more concrete.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yeah.

We can probably figure out a gradation of intent and figure out what is directly intended, what is directly excluded, and some of the shades of gray in between those pools of rhetorical light.

In that context, RAW would be the gradations that are most directly supported by the text.

But even there, "most supported" isn't a binary truth. It's just the category that's less ambiguous than the other categories.

There's a tiny pool of things that are explicitly excluded (forbidden). There are a tiny pool of things explicitly allowed. Everything else, everything we argue about is in the muddy middle. And there, in my cynical moments, I tend to believe that "RAW" is merely a rhetorical club to beat other people with.

By "RAW", "RAW" doesn't exist as a thing. Because the rules include the statement that the DM is free to modify the rules however they wish. Thus, specifying some things as RAW (meaning that they're supposedly authoritative) and others as "not RAW" (meaning disfavored) is merely a rhetorical trick. Because whatever rules the DM (hopefully in discussion with the players) sets are the rules just as much as anything written. Because some things that are written don't get used.

Thus, talking about RAW as if it means something is pointless. Instead, we should refer to the text directly and give it no extra authoritative weight beyond a default value. It's the value that the rules take when no other rules or decisions apply. Houserules are not lesser or "outside the rules", the're just as much rules as any other piece of text, JC tweet, errata statement, etc.

[Unoriginal]

The question posed is: by RAW can you cast 1 Action spells outside of combat?


Hiring someone to cast a relatively common spell of 1st or 2nd level, such as cure wounds or identify, is easy enough in a city or town, and might cost 10 to 50 gold pieces (plus the cost of any expensive material components).

PHB p.159


CURE WOUNDS
1st-level evocation
Casting Time: I action

PHB p.230


The answer to the question posed is "yes".





Thus, talking about RAW as if it means something is pointless.

The answer "X is RAW, but ask your DM" is pertinent, however, because it establish a common frame of reference.

[NaughtyTiger]

The answer to the question posed is "yes".

Well played. Sincerely.

It bypasses the OP's question, but it is a good answer. found a way around the Kobiyashi Maru.

[GlenSmash!]

A Scimitar is worth 2.5x more and weights 1.5x more than the shortsword while having the same exact stats.

Well a Scimitar does do Slashing damage while a Shortsword does Piercing. Only 6 creatures in the MM have Resistance to Slashing, while 10 have resistance to Piercing, however, 2 flat out have Immunity to Slashing, so it probably evens out.

So they are different but whether that difference matters is entirely campaign dependent.

[qube]

PHB p.159

PHB p.230

The answer to the question posed is "yes".Actually, I can do you one better, and point out you can do it during a chase (which DMG p 253 gives symelar rules (to quote) "As in combat", but which variations (such as dashing & opportunity attacks). But as it specifically notes "A chase participant can make attacks and cast spells against other creatures within range" - that's an out-of-combat situation where you can do it.

But we're not talking about that. We're talking about a (edit)"normal/typical/..." out of combat situation.

My reasoning is simple: AFAIK, the rules don't present to you with a framework of rules in that situation, so what you can and can't do isn't determined by RAW.
Which, "technically", requires 'DM fiat' for everything you do.

(and Yes, I know that sounds stupid, and Yes, I know that's not how D&D is played or supposed to be played - I'm aware that's absultely not RAI. we're talking RAW here).

[Erys]

What is RAW?

RAW = Rules As Written; also, the game is designed to have a permissive rule set, meaning abilities/spells/etc tend to tell you what you can do (usually within defined limits) instead of telling you what you cannot do.

As soon as you start injecting new meaning to what is written, or insist that you can do something because you are not 'expressly forbidden'; you are no longer in RAW.

Which is fine, the game is built largely around deviating away from RAW when appropriate or needed. Its a feature, not a bug.

[GlenSmash!]

RAW is a common starting point for discussion on how to make the game most fun for your table.

[Unoriginal]

My reasoning is simple: AFAIK, the rules don't present to you with a framework of rules in that situation, so what you can and can't do isn't determined by RAW.

Your reasoning would be correct, except for this particular case the rules do say you can do it.

It's like the question: "how fast does a creature falls?". Before the Xanathar's, there was no RAW about it. But it changed nothing about the fact that creatures did still fall.

[qube]

Your reasoning would be correct, except for this particular case the rules do say you can do it.can I your oppinion on me disagreeing with you: you've shown that by RAW you can hire someone to do it. You haven't shown you (the PC) can do it.

(again, disclaimier, I know how stupid that distinction sounds ... well, maybe less then normal, as the rules of what NPCs/monster/... can do aren't the same as that of players)

[Asmotherion]

Too little of it, and D&D becomes a make-believe game. Too much of it, and it becomes a boring arguement between people who loose the big picture that D&D is more about having fun, and rules are meant to support this fun, not pause the game every 10 minutes to discuss the rules.

Basically, Raw is, the rules of the game as it is designed to be played by the developers, who admittingly sometimes bypass them when it is more fun to do so. Everything directly written, as opposed to implied (RAI) in the rule books is RAW.

[Greywander]

the example he replied on was about tying shoelaces. I was making a silly example:


If the books never make a mention of tying shoelaces, it's not part of RAW, no matter how stupid it would be the partymembers walk around with open shoes.

With the counter argument being


The PHB specifically lists Do's and Don'ts.
Anything that doesn't violate Do's and Don'ts is RAW.

Because nothing says you can't tie your shoes, you can. The DM cannot say "no, you are not allowed to tie your shoes" without declaring DM fiat.

While I certainly grasp what you're saying, for me, RAW, is only the same as quoting something. And I'm not in the business of claiming that automatically makes it "right" (again, RAW =/= RAI).
You're actually both right here, sort of. RAW, there are no rules about tying shoes, either allowing or disallowing. However, the RAW understands that PCs and NPCs will need to do things that there aren't rules for; the rules don't even try to be comprehensive enough to cover everything. The RAW about cases where there is no RAW is that it becomes DM fiat: because there are no rules about tying shoes it's up to the DM to decide if players can or can't tie their shoes, and if a skill check might be required, etc.

The players are free to attempt to tie their shoes, in which case it lies on the DM to either say, "Okay, you do that," or, "Roll a Dexterity check," or, "You can't do that." Most of the time this won't be a problem, as both players and DMs tend to have similar ideas to what a character can or can't do, and players won't attempt a task they already believe impossible (although they may inquire if it is possible). The only time an issue will manifest is when a player attempts to do something they believe is possible and gets told that they can't.


RAW, you're allowed to ignore RAW. Personally, I think identifying RAW is just a way for a lot of DMs to be either lazy or scared of making changes to what's supposed to be a fluid system. I'm not meaning to direct that at OP, I just see a lot of DMs shy away from certain ideas to avoid taking any kinds of risks. Which is actually really frustrating, since there's not a lot of content for our 5-year-old system.
It's true, you're not supposed to adhere religiously to RAW, the game tells you to tinker with the rules to suit your own play style. But that doesn't mean RAW isn't useful. It allows us to provide answers to rules questions that are generally more useful than, "Ask your DM." As someone else put it, you can instead say, "RAW is X, but ask your DM." It's impossible to know what houserules a particular DM may or may not be using, so RAW provides a common point of reference.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's true, you're not supposed to adhere religiously to RAW, the game tells you to tinker with the rules to suit your own play style. But that doesn't mean RAW isn't useful. It allows us to provide answers to rules questions that are generally more useful than, "Ask your DM." As someone else put it, you can instead say, "RAW is X, but ask your DM." It's impossible to know what houserules a particular DM may or may not be using, so RAW provides a common point of reference.

It's better to say "the default setting is X" with varying ranges of "tables vary wildly on this point" to "most people play this using the default setting."

Ascribing special meaning to RAW beyond the default is the cause of many pointless arguments. Again, it's not fiat when a DM makes a ruling--that ruling is the only rule that matters. RAW is not definitive, RAW does not let you overrule anything. Not following what forums have decided is "RAW" is not doing it wrong.

5e does not have the concept of "breaking the rules" as far as written text goes. And the DM cannot (by definition) break the rules. They can do crappy things that are unfun, but their decisions are the rules unless the table decides otherwise. The only thing that matters is what the table has decided.

[Willie the Duck]

RAW is a convention (or perhaps social construct) between forum-users. No more, no less. It in theory attempts to be a literal interpretation of what is in a specific book*, however, quite often we violate that because we allow errata or 'official' (and argue over the meaning of that) corrections to supersede the physical book. Exactly where or how the limits are defined are pretty much a group consensus**.
*which would cause the fact that the text has changed in between printings of the core books to be a real issue.
**I remember 3e had this big list of rules about general and specific, core vs. not core, newer publication date vs older, etc. And those rules too, are only group consensus by forum users and possibly WotC.


possibly. it never crossed my mind though (guess that 3E rule-nitpicking has corrupted my brain so much that I only considered it a D&D thing :smallredface: )

I can understand not putting this question in a place where 3e/PF-focused individuals would routinely see it. :-P ;-p



The PHB describes the "Action" only in reference to "Combat".

For those of us AFB, can you quote the relevant passage?
Even without my book, I am confident that this rule, if it so exists, is routinely violated. There are things, many things, other than spells, where the only rule structure provided describes them as existing within the round structure, but which one is expected to be able to do outside of combat. Selectively imposing this limit upon spells, and not those other things, would be cherry picking a constraint upon spellcasters (wow, might be a first time that the spellcaster gets shafted on the spells-not spells dichotomy :smalltongue:). I'm sure someone by their book can dig up some example (if they would be so kind).


We are not debating whether you can cast a spell, just which interpretation is RAW.

And you should understand why everyonelots of people are treating it like a 'how many angels can dance on a pinhead?'-type question.

[qube]

For those of us AFB, can you quote the relevant passage? page 198,


Chapter 9: Combat

9.1 The Order of Combat
...
The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn
...

9.1.3 Your turn
...
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action.


Edit: a.k.a. if you're not in a turn structure (combat, or chase), there's (AFAIK) no written rule that allows for you to take an action.
without that structure, can you take actions, like casting spells? (again, by RAW; by RAI, the answer is obviously yet)
Edit 2: Yes, no, Requires DM fiat either way, ... are all possible valid answers to that. I didn't mean to imply a forced yes or no.

[ThePolarBear]

So ... I was having a talk with someone, and it seems (s)he had a ... very different definition of what RAW is. So, I asked to make this thread; but since that didn't happen, I suppose I'm the one making it.

[...]

What is RAW?

This is what RAW is for the people at Wizards.

"RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own. Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published."


page 198, [... combat related stuff...]


You are forgetting context. First off, when you want to cast a spell in combat, you take the cast a spell action. It's not the other way around, where you need to take the cast a spell action to cast a spell. Why is this? Because, in general, the flow of the game is "player states what they want to do" "DM decides on it".
Rules for spellcasting indicate a casting TIME, not an action requirement. The time needed to cast a spell is "1 action" worth of time, which in combat directly translate into using your action as the allotted "time" to do something. Actions do not have a specific "time" they occupy, but generally all fall under-and-up-to the "single round" worth, and we know that a round is "about 6 seconds".

Can you cast outside of combat? Yes, as long as your DM allows. It takes up to about 6 seconds, if the spell has a time cost of 1 action or 1 bonus action.

[Willie the Duck]

"RAW. “Rules as written”—that’s what RAW stands for. When I dwell on the RAW interpretation of a rule, I’m studying what the text says in context, without regard to the designers’ intent. The text is forced to stand on its own. Whenever I consider a rule, I start with this perspective; it’s important for me to see what you see, not what I wished we’d published or thought we’d published."

They'd call it 'The Death of the Author' interpretation, but knowing their unpleasable fan base, too many people would suggest that they keep working on that:smalltongue:.

[ThePolarBear]

They'd call it 'The Death of the Author' interpretation, but knowing their unpleasable fan base, too many people would suggest that the keep working on that:smalltongue:.

That's a naughty thought :D

[qube]

It's not the other way around, where you need to take the cast a spell action to cast a spell.Well ... PHB, page 202 does note


Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast.

Now, again, considering how a round is an abstraction of 6 seconds, and an action is something you can do during your turn, I can well see a DM deciding you could do it out of combat in 6 seconds.
or 5 seconds (as an action isn't a full turn),
or 3 seconds (as warcasters can also use opportunity attack spells, they are able to cast 2 in one round),
or 2 seconds (as bonus actions spells are not per definition shorter then action spells you can have 3 per round)
or 1.5 seconds (as above, but including that action/bonusaction/OA isn't your full turn, so not your full 6 seconds)

(in fact, IMHO, you need to have a seriously screwed up DM, or special situation, where I don't see them deciding you can do it)

But that's the question, and the crux of the thread: that decision - is that part of RAW? Is common sense part of RAW, or is it only the rules as they are written down.

[ThePolarBear]

Well ... PHB, page 202 does note


Most spells require a single action to cast, but some spells require a bonus action, a reaction, or much more time to cast.

Why are you stripping "time" from "action"? It is the time to take an action due to context. It is RAW. As is RAW that you need to take the "Cast a Spell" action to cast a spell in combat, but that action being "an Action", "a Bonus Action", "a Reaction" is not important.


But that's the question, and the crux of the thread: that decision - is that part of RAW? Is common sense part of RAW, or is it only the rules as they are written down.

The fact that you can is. How much does it take is not important, exactly like it's not important how many fictional attacks are in an "Attack action". A barbarian might swing 15 times, and it would still only count as 2 mechanical attacks. Unless it somehow matters (and if it matters at this level of granularity, everyone is in initiative anyway), it is not important because, usually, out of combat the time is counted in minutes, hours or even days, and the DM is the one that chooses how much time a task takes (phb, page 181)

[JackPhoenix]

For example, RAW, Burning Hands requires two free hands because it really does require touching thumbs and open palms. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/46603/does-burning-hands-really-require-touching-thumbs) Although, if you're an Enlarged Bard grappling something massive, a DM should totally let you blow that Godzilla's face off with Burning Hands.

Flavor text =/= rules. RAW (and RAI) (https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/04/20/how-is-a-character-supposed-to-cast-burning-hands-with-one-hand/), casting a spell with S component (including Burning Hands) requires only one hand (or no hands, if you're sorcerer with Subtle spell). I have no idea why are you trying to pass some random guy on an internet unrelated to the developement process of 5e as a source of RAW, but I've noticed it's not the first time.

[KorvinStarmast]

All it takes to cast the spell fly, out of combat, is less than six seconds.

Watch how easy this is.



page 198, Chapter 9: Combat
9.1 The Order of Combat
...
The game organizes the chaos of combat into a cycle of rounds and turns. A round represents about 6 seconds in the game world. During a round, each participant in a battle takes a turn
...

9.1.3 Your turn
...
On your turn, you can move a distance up to your speed and take one action.
The casting time is one action. Somewhere during that six second period when you cast it during combat, you have time to cast that spell, and perhaps do something else like move, or a bonus action, and/or interact with another object. From that, it is easily concluded that the time it takes outside of Combat to cast a spell with one action as a casting time is less than or equal to six seconds. How much time (precisely) doesn't matter, since this isn't a computer game with a clock running in the background.


D&D rules are not computer code. The RAW obsessed far too often forget that.

[Xetheral]

But that's the question, and the crux of the thread: that decision - is that part of RAW? Is common sense part of RAW, or is it only the rules as they are written down.

Your question does not have (and cannot have) a definitive answer because "RAW" is not precisely defined.

You and NaughtyTiger define "RAW" differently. That means you are using the same label to refer to different concepts. What matters is trying to understand the concept the other person is referring to, not trying to resolve the (unresolvable) question of whether either of you is misusing the label.

You could also discuss which of your definitions is more useful as a descriptive label. But that's a value judgment, and can't possibility facilitate future communication with anyone who isn't part of that discussion. I am curious though: do you think your definition of "RAW" has utility? Under what circumstances would it be helpful for someone to know whether or not something is "RAW" under your definition?

[Louro]

Fun > DM > RAI > RAW

This is Rule 0, and it is RAW btw.

[Willie the Duck]

Flavor text =/= rules.

You see, this is what I mean by social construct. I say that because the flavor text (again, at work, but I'm assuming the "you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread" part is in the 5e rulebook as well as the srd) is written in the book. So this idea that flavor text ne rules is some agreed upon (or not) agreement between people who utilize the term RAW. Where exactly did that come from? Who gets to decide (answer: no one, as Xetheral points out, different people use the term RAW differently)?

[KorvinStarmast]

You see, this is what I mean by social construct. I say that because the flavor text (again, at work, but I'm assuming the "you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread" part is in the 5e rulebook as well as the srd) is written in the book. So this idea that flavor text ne rules is some agreed upon (or not) agreement between people who utilize the term RAW. Where exactly did that come from? Who gets to decide (answer: no one, as Xetheral points out, different people use the term RAW differently)? I seem to recall that 5e doesn't have flavor text (fluff?), as stated by one of the devs; that view of the rules ( a distinction between two elements of a spell description) is a carry over from a previous edition (4e) I think. I'll see if I can figure out where the source is on that.

Here (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/78022/22566) and here also (https://twitter.com/JeremyECrawford/status/991012429466251270)if anyone is interested.


Jeremy Crawford Retweeted DMDeadDanFiendish
In any piece of writing, context matters. If a rule has multiple sentences, they're meant to be read together. For example, the first sentence of Divine Sense is meant to be read with the rest of the feature's sentences, which explain that first sentence. #DnD

That was in response to this tweet.


DMDeadDanFiendish
So the first line is flavor text, then? There are people who insist every word in the rules have mechanical impact while others state that some, like the first line of Divine Sense, are just flavor with the "crunch" following after.

[PhoenixPhyre]

You see, this is what I mean by social construct. I say that because the flavor text (again, at work, but I'm assuming the "you hold your hands with thumbs touching and fingers spread" part is in the 5e rulebook as well as the srd) is written in the book. So this idea that flavor text ne rules is some agreed upon (or not) agreement between people who utilize the term RAW. Where exactly did that come from? Who gets to decide (answer: no one, as Xetheral points out, different people use the term RAW differently)?

Exactly. RAW is not a well-defined or useful term. It's merely an appeal to illusory authority (the supposed authority of the text) to convince someone to do what you want.

Reading and understanding the text is important. But it's only the first step to understanding and using the rules. Same way with the actual legal code--the text is important. But applying it in a literal, magic-words fashion and hunting for loopholes in the exact wording is a good way to get slapped down by a court. Because courts don't work that way. They consider intent, equity, prior decisions, circumstances, etc.

RAW as used on the forums is its own specialized interpretive method that has very little to do with the actual game. It claims to be "just the text" but then interprets it in ways that ignore context (sometimes considering partial phrases in isolation) and english syntax, all for a results-oriented goal.

[Willie the Duck]

I seem to recall that 5e doesn't have flavor text (fluff?), as stated by one of the devs; that view of the rules ( a distinction between two elements of a spell description) is a carry over from a previous edition (4e) I think. I'll see if I can figure out where the source is on that.

They come from somewhere (I'm guessing someone at WotC described them at some point). 3e also has a set of precedence (or at least forum discussers use one) that comes from somewhere. General vs. specific, core vs. not-core, and most recent publishing date. Somehow, at least some people seem to think that it makes the 3e Rules Compendium completely non-canon or non-rules or the like (since it clarified rules already in the Core books, which were then reprinted without said updates), which is a mind blowing thought. I remember someone on some forum trying to use those rules with 5e, and everyone coming down on them with 'that's not a thing outside of 3e' and them being genuinely flabbergasted. I don't know it they thought they were some kind of legal concept (of game rules), or a semi-universal social convention (sort of like Robert's Rules of Order), or what. It was not pretty.

[PhoenixPhyre]

They come from somewhere (I'm guessing someone at WotC described them at some point). 3e also has a set of precedence (or at least forum discussers use one) that comes from somewhere. General vs. specific, core vs. not-core, and most recent publishing date. Somehow, at least some people seem to think that it makes the 3e Rules Compendium completely non-canon or non-rules or the like (since it clarified rules already in the Core books, which were then reprinted without said updates), which is a mind blowing thought. I remember someone on some forum trying to use those rules with 5e, and everyone coming down on them with 'that's not a thing outside of 3e' and them being genuinely flabbergasted. I don't know it they thought they were some kind of legal concept (of game rules), or a semi-universal social convention (sort of like Robert's Rules of Order), or what. It was not pretty.

3e had two source-precedent rules:

* Text Trumps Table: if something appears in both the text of an entry and in a table and those two versions differ, the text is correct.
* Primary Source Rules: The original source of an ability or rule (modified by things specifically noted as errata) controls. So the PHB/DMG/MM are the primary sources for a lot of rules, while things like the FAQ, Sage Advice, Rules Compendium, etc. are secondary sources and thus have no "RAW" effect. Things that are reprinted in different forms in different books have different meanings in different contexts. So a monstrous ability from the MM, if re-printed in another form in another book has the MM meaning for anything not from that other book but the alternate meaning for monsters from that book.

All in all, it was a horrible, awful mess. They tried to be precise without actually doing the regularization work necessary to be consistently precise.

There are no such rules in 5e. That's because RAW isn't a binding thing. Everything (including text, errata, SA, etc) is merely a suggestion for tables to use or not as they see fit. In legal terms it's persuasive precedent, not binding precedent.

[Willie the Duck]

3e had two source-precedent rules

That's what I vaguely remembered, but the exactly what isn't as important as the why--they apparently somewhere stated them as, 'rules for the rules,' as it were. That's the only reason why it's a thing--not some inherent structure or more widely accepted social norm.

[Knaight]

Putting aside the cruch-fluff argument brewing here (for all that I might want to go into a small essay on qualitative crunch, which is an established class of design used often outside D&D) - RAW is literally just the set of rules written down, interpreted as literally as possible. These literal rules include numerous rules that the DM can put stuff in their campaign that isn't explicitly delineated in particular, and as such the idea that shoelaces can't exist because the rules never explicitly list them in the equipment section is flatly ridiculous.

You're both wrong, essentially. DM discretion is build into the rules as written, and the idea that RAW includes a comprehensive binding list of exclusions is completely ridiculous.

[Tanarii]

Part of RAW in 5e is the DM decides if any action is automatically successful, automatically a failure, or requires an ability check to resolve.

That makes 5e RAW incredibly broad.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That makes 5e RAW incredibly broad.

Would you say it's...meaningless?
Forum in-joke/call-back detected.

[Pelle]

What is RAW?

Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

[LtPowers]

If you think I'm trying to BS you what RAW means, feel free to make a thread about it with the simple question: "if a rule isn't written down, but it doesn't contradict with what is written down, is it part of RAW?"

You're asking the wrong question.

The Rules as Written address only the text of the game rulebooks. If a rule isn't written down, it cannot be part of the rules as written, by definition. But that doesn't tell you anything about the rule's validity. So why ask the question in the first place? You should be asking if the rule is valid and comports with the rules as understood by everyone at your game table, not whether something the rules don't even address qualifies as "RAW" or not.

For the specific scenarios presented:

1) Is the question "Can a character tie his shoes per RAW?" Or is it "Is there a written rule about tying shoes?" Or is it "What are the RAW about tying shoes?"

The answer to the first is "Mu"; the rules as written say nothing about tying shoes (though they do heavily imply you can attempt to undertake any action reasonable to the situation your character is in.) The answer to the second is "No". The answer to the third is "Nothing".


Powers &8^]

[NaughtyTiger]

dang it Pelle, you got it stuck in my head now!!

[Willie the Duck]

dang it Pelle, you got it stuck in my head now!!

He wanted to hurt you. :smalltongue:

If you want an alternate version of it, the Postmodern Jukebox does an amazing Animal House-style rendition (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuQQOInbF88) of the song.

[PhoenixPhyre]

He wanted to hurt you. :smalltongue:

If you want an alternate version of it, the Postmodern Jukebox does an amazing Animal House-style rendition (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuQQOInbF88) of the song.

I'll admit that whenever I hear a phrase like "what is X", that song immediately pops into my head.

[Willie the Duck]

I'll admit that whenever I hear a phrase like "what is X", that song immediately pops into my head.

Algebra class BITD must have been frustrating.

[GlenSmash!]

Baby don't hurt me
Don't hurt me
No more

Thank you!

That has been going in my head every time I read the Thread title.

[ATHATH]

Baby don't hurt me, baby don't hurt me, no more...

[Pelle]

dang it Pelle, you got it stuck in my head now!!

Great, I've had it stuck in my head since seeing the thread title :smallbiggrin:



If you want an alternate version of it, the Postmodern Jukebox does an amazing Animal House-style rendition (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuQQOInbF88) of the song.

I was a little disappointed last time I saw them live. Scott has made the touring band a franchise, and wasn't there himself...

[Willie the Duck]

I was a little disappointed last time I saw them live. Scott has made the touring band a franchise, and wasn't there himself...

I don't know about their tours, I just like the vids. I imagine that he's still trying to run the entire thing like he was a band leader when it's really become a whole company or something. Still, my wife and I want to adopt Sara Niemietz and Puddles the Clown (I know, their like 25 and 50, we'd make it work) :smallbiggrin:.

[ATHATH]

Oof, I just read this thread and realized that Pelle posted my/his joke before I did.