RAW, RAI, RAF.. what is the ranking of their importance?

[Satori01]

RAW=Rules as Written
RAI= Rules as Intended
RAF= Rules as Fun

So how would you rank them in importance?

By inclination I would say:

1) RAW
2) RAF
3) RAI

By aspiration I say:

1) RAF
2) RAW
3) RAI

[Edea]

In reality: RAF > RAI > RAW

On this board: RAW > RAI > RAF

[OldTrees1]

When doing a product review (which includes the player base criticizing WotC):
RAW >> RAI. No other acronym is being sold so WotC is not held accountable for any other acronym.

When playing the game:
Rules as the GM is currently ruling them >> Everything
Probably mostly RAW because creating rules is effort and we pay WotC to handle some of that effort.

[Foxydono]

Can only speak for myself and the tables I play at. But RAF > RAI > RAW. Sometimes RAI comes before RAF, it is not black and white. RAW has little value though, so I don't really understand all the RAI v RAW discussions, but thats jusr me :)

[Skylivedk]

I take RAF over everything. I've only one DM who plays by RAW and with him we're changing to Fate. Everybody else has changed to either Pathfinder 2 or our own version of 5e which is by now so heavily modded it's like a tank that sails and has vertical take offs.

[Greywander]

In reality: RAF > RAI > RAW

On this board: RAW > RAI > RAF
The problem is that it's hard to have a meaningful discussion about rules if we're not talking about RAW. You want to use houserules? Great, they can really improve the game. But there's no reason to think that two table with DMs that have never met would use the same houserules. And a lot of RAI is actually just houserules, as a lot of people will disagree on what RAI actually is, whereas RAW is (mostly) unambiguous.

If you're asking about how a rule works, I can only tell you about RAW. I don't know how your DM will rule it, so I can only tell you what the book says. If you're asking about build advice, I can only go based on RAW, because I don't know what houserules your table is using unless you tell us in your post. Basically, there are a lot more tables that run RAW (or mostly RAW) than do not, and the ones that don't all vary from RAW differently. A table that doesn't run RAW is the exception, rather than the rule.

[Zhorn]

When answering forum questions: RAW first, avoid interpretation or implications that are not written explicitly in the 5e books. Then RAI to cover things that are unclear. Avoid inserting houserules, or at least explicitly state when you are doing so as to avoid confusion.

When dissecting the intended purpose of rules: RAI first, focusing on what the current designers are saying, cite sources where possible. Then RAW to working out the word choices and intent vs interpretation angle. Again, avoid inserting houserules, or at least explicitly state when you are doing so as to avoid confusion.

When in play: RAF trumps RAW/RAI in any case where they don't make sense, are unfun to use, unreasonable, or otherwise interfere with the game.

[Bunny Commando]

There's no ranking.
As a DM, you have several roles: storyteller, referee, judge. You have to make sure everyone is having fun, but fun may have quite the different meaning for the people at your table - I currently run three games (D&D, Dark Heresy, Savage Worlds) and I'm pretty sure if I would ask to my players what's fun for them, they would all give me a different answer.
Rules are a framework to work with and you may bend, change, ignore or strictly follow them as you see fit in order to create a fun game - it even says so in the rulebook. So you have to read your table, try to understand what your players and you would find funnier and then make a call. I know for sure that at least one of my players have a preference for RAW.

RAW may seem prevalent because, as Greywander pointed out, it's easier to have a meaningful discussion about RAW.

[Chugger]

Silly rabbit, rules are for kids, except this one:

RoC.

RoC > all.

Rule of Cool.

One Rule to ring them all,
One Rule to slay by.
One Rule to trump them all
And at the table play by!

[MinotaurWarrior]

RAF - > RAW -> RAI

Honestly, the intentions of the designers that they didn't put on paper and subject to rigorous playtesting and proofreading are often bad or incomprehensible.

For two major examples, consider their stances on coffeelocks and "nuclear wizards".

[MoiMagnus]

RAE = Rules as Expected
That's the top priority.

Sometimes, the players will read a text and will immediately understand the RAI interpretation and miss the fact that RAW is different. There is no point going for a counter-intuitive RAW in this case.

Sometimes, the designers seriously messed things up and the players will read the text as RAW not seeing the RAI interpretation. In that case, RAW is better as a short-term solution, and a table discussion to house rule / follows the RAI or RAW should follow.

Sometimes, the players really expect to be able to do something, and the rules both RAI and RAW fail to simulate this possibility. Then RAF exists to allow player to do what they expect to be able to do.

Obviously, the main problem of RAE is that your table might not be homogeneous on their expectations.

[Silly Name]

At the table, I generally rank RAW lowest. For me what's important is to have fun and keep the action going, so either RAF or what MoiMagnus calls RAE - it's way better to roll with what makes sense than to halt the game to look up the rules and lose momentum. Doesn't matter if it goes against the RAW, all that matters is that it remains fun and consistent.

When discussing rules, either on the internet or with friends because we want to build characters, then RAW is generally the most important, closely followed by RAI (with sources) when the RAW would be dysfunctional or create a weird result, or is unclear and we interpret it in different ways.

[fbelanger]

RPG and especially DnD is a rare game where you make optimization based on floating rules.

[sophontteks]

The book isn't written by a lawyer, so taking everything RAW, and not being recipient to any clarifications, is going to cause problems. Your not playing by the book as much as you are making your own interpetation of that they intended by what they wrote.

Ranking these is pretty silly when RAW and RAI are used closely together to vest understand the rules. Again, to write rules in a way not open to interpetation would likely require a law degree.

[Sigreid]

It depends really. If you're playing with people who are either strangers, or don't have broad agreement on what RAF and RAI are, then it's RAW>RAI>RAF just so everyone knows what is going on. If it's a group that has broad agreement on what RAF is, it's RAF>RAI>RAW, reserving RAW only for those instances where there's no agreement on what RAI and RAF are.

[cutlery]

RAF, until some players need to be reined in with RAW/RAI before they chip away at the fun of others.

[LudicSavant]

Depends on the context we're talking about.

If we're criticizing a product being sold to us, or writing one ourselves, RAW is most important, because the rules in the book are the product. Knowing the writers intentions can also be useful -- but I'd be cautious about people claiming things are "RAI" if the designers haven't very specifically said that it was.

In a forum optimization discussion, RAW / clearly stated RAI is also important because it's the closest thing to common ground available to us; you can't have that much of a shared discussion about Schrodinger's Table Rulings, as it were.

But at the table itself, rules as fun is most important. A skilled DM can fill in gaps in a system or improve upon it, or simply adapt it to the needs of their own group. That said, there is gameplay value in consistency of expectations, and in mastering a system before your alter it, so it's often a good idea to not be too hasty with the houserules. You might think that as a game designer I'd be all over overhauling the game left and right, but if anything I've actually gotten more conservative, minimalist, and surgical in making any adjustments to the rules as I've gained decades of experience.

[Aett_Thorn]

For me, RAW is important to know in theory, because it gives you the baseline for making changes. Sure, you might not treat things as RAW, but if you don't know what the RAW is, it can become very hard to change things and keep balance. RAI is useful to know as well, in case there is a question at the table about what something means, or about how two different rules interact. The writers weren't perfect, so know what their intention was can be useful.

But I am going to agree with others that RAF at the table is more important. If RAW is also RAF, that's great. But if RAW or RAI is interfering with RAF, then the table should look into changing it to better suit them.

[Cicciograna]

I can't believe nobody has yet made the pun that RAF > Luftwaffe.

[Lunali]

You left out an option, rule 1. I have played in several games where the DM made rule changes that only made the game more fun for them.

[jaappleton]

Strictly my opinion

RAI > RAF > RAW

Though in same instances, RAF wins out over all.

Example: Technically you can’t Smite with an Unarmed Strike (or is it Natural Weapon now? Whatever. It’s needlessly confusing, IMO). At my table you absolutely can.

RAW states that bashing someone with a shield as a bonus action via Shield Master can’t occur until after your attack. I believe RAI that it can come before the attack.

[Quietus]

For me, it's RAW->RAF->RAI. How strictly I keep them in that order depends on what exactly I'm doing. For example, if I'm at Adventurer's League, I cleave VERY closely to that, because it's supposed to be an even playing field. In games run by certain friends, I understand that RAF will come first every time. In my own games, I am quite strict about RAW, though there are times that I absolutely allow certain things to be handwaved, because not doing so would bring the table down.

There are also times that I will, in my own personal games, elevate RAW to the point that the other two options vanish. However, I only do this with the full knowledge and buy-in of everyone at the table, with the explicit goal of using the absurdity that comes from that as part of the selling point of the game. It's been years since I did so, last time was in 3.5 and I had a group who was extremely rules savvy, we had a great time. My current gaming groups would have no interest in a game like that, and if I'm honest, I don't think there's ENOUGH true RAW absurdity to truly make a game like that fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

When answering forum questions: RAW first, avoid interpretation or implications that are not written explicitly in the 5e books. Then RAI to cover things that are unclear. Avoid inserting houserules, or at least explicitly state when you are doing so as to avoid confusion.

When dissecting the intended purpose of rules: RAI first, focusing on what the current designers are saying, cite sources where possible. Then RAW to working out the word choices and intent vs interpretation angle. Again, avoid inserting houserules, or at least explicitly state when you are doing so as to avoid confusion.

When in play: RAF trumps RAW/RAI in any case where they don't make sense, are unfun to use, unreasonable, or otherwise interfere with the game. nice approach.

Depends on the context we're talking about.

If we're criticizing a product being sold to us, or writing one ourselves, RAW is most important, because the rules in the book are the product.
Knowing the writers intentions can also be useful -- but I'd be cautious about people claiming things are "RAI" if the designers haven't very specifically said that it was.

But at the table itself, rules as fun is most important. A skilled DM can fill in gaps in a system or improve upon it, or simply adapt it to the needs of their own group. That said, there is gameplay value in consistency of expectations, and in mastering a system before your alter it, so it's often a good idea to not be too hasty with the houserules. You might think that as a game designer I'd be all over overhauling the game left and right, but if anything I've actually gotten more conservative, minimalist, and surgical in making any adjustments to the rules as I've gained decades of experience. RAW is a place to start the conversation, not where to end it.

Example: Technically you can’t Smite with an Unarmed Strike (or is it Natural Weapon now? Whatever. It’s needlessly confusing, IMO). At my table you absolutely can.
me too.
RAW states that bashing someone with a shield as a bonus action via Shield Master can’t occur until after your attack. I believe RAI that it can come before the attack. And the original ruling / rule was that since it wasn't specified, it came either before or after based on how the bonus action rule is written. That makes the most sense ... and how I prefer to rule it. The backpedalling on that by Crafword was a big disappointment.

[ScoutTrooper]

Having DM'd for almost a full year now

RAF > RAW > RAI

I let my Sorcerer spend over sorc points/Do multiple flexible castings to do some cool things outside of combat.
I also don't get hung up on, dropping torches, drawing weapons, holding a bow, then switching to sword and board during a movement.
I let a player use a Rowboat as a weapon (Minotaur Rogue(Yes, they got a sneak attack off with it, at level 3, so it crit)It was awesome)

[Contrast]

RAW is a place to start the conversation, not where to end it.

I think a lot of time people take all the arguing about RAW to mean that people think games should be run RAW whereas I think this thread shows this is more realistically most peoples opinion on the matter.

I like it when people know the rules not because I want to insist we run the game by the rules but because it gives us a shared framework (which is the reason we're using a rulebook in the first place) around to figure out how to play the game. Its also important to know what the rules are before you start trying to change things so you have a better understanding of if the thing you're changing/adding/removing is likely to achieve the objective you're setting out to achieve by doing that.

So for me at least its somewhat difficult to answer your question. If I'm taking shelter from the rain, which is more important in my shelter - the foundations, the walls or the roof? I'm going to be having a pretty miserable time if we try and take away any of them.

I guess I'd have to say RAI? If we're using RAW to inform RAF then RAI is a little superfluous and without RAW we don't have a system at all so...but I'd be more inclined to follow RAI than RAW so... and so on.

[Kyutaru]

If we're talking strictly observing the rules from a product standpoint then RAI > RAW > RAF. This is because RAW can have many interpretations, that is the nature of language. The same exact sentence can be read seven different ways and all of those ways are RAW. It leads to debates between people who think their RAW is superior to your RAW even though both are RAW. RAW is very raw... RAI on the other hand is often clarified by the developers online or in the Sage Advice columns or videos. RAI represents what the rule meant when it was being written. There is only one form of RAI and it's the one universal ruling that matters because again RAW is too open to interpretation of the language ambiguities. It doesn't matter if you squint hard enough to see a RAW loophole that no one else would consider common sense because the RAI was that the rule works a certain way, the one interpretation to rule them all.

Trick is arriving at the RAI when even at times the developer conflicts with itself due to there being multiple points of view even within the design team. At that point you need to know who ranks in superiority and has the authority to determine what the RAI was at the time of creation, though erratas can also change the RAW later when the developers don't like how it functions to better approach what the RAI was meant to be rather than what it literally was by RAW. So RAI is the most important yet again.

Then again, DMs will do as they please so if we're discussing what's important at the table then RAF beats everything.

[LudicSavant]

RAW is a place to start the conversation, not where to end it. More or less?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I care very little for "discussing rules" in terms of prioritizing RAW over anything else. Because frankly, RAW breaks down into a few cases--
* those about which everyone agrees (no need to discuss other than to point at a page number)
* those which people disagree at the fundamental level and so RAW is no help. Because despite its name, "RAW" requires significant interpretation. All text does. And the interpretations differ.

So really, RAW and RAI are just starting points. By themselves, they matter very little. RAP (Rules as Played), which approach RAF in the ideal are the only things that matter. Discussing Monopoly rules without considering the house rules more common than the actual rules is pointless. Discussing RAW in a vacuum, when that's an artificial construct of forum discussions and not designed as the actual ruleset is similarly pointless.

In my experience, taking the simplest non-absurd reading of the text gets you 90% of the way to a functional ruleset. The rest is expected to vary by table. And is the part that actually makes the game fun--the text gives you all those boring mechanical pieces, the bookkeeping and uncertainty resolution stuff and skeletons to hang content on. The parts that actually matter are the parts that you insert yourself.

And you can discuss rules without only sticking to RAW--

1. Here's what the text says.
2. Here's how we prefer to interpret it/play it (if that differs).
3. And here's why
4. And here's the effect of that interpretation on our table.

Strip away the false veneer of objectivity and accept it for what it is. Subjective.

But that's my opinion, not some mandate from on high.

[Keravath]

In my opinion RAW is the common denominator. Every D&D 5e game starts at RAW and moves away as the DM and the players see fit.

No matter what rule set you use the goal is to have fun. I find Rules as Fun is an oxymoron. If folks aren't having fun then they change the rules that bother them ... if they are having fun then RAW IS RAF.

However, some folks seem to think of RAF as "Rules will be changed to make the unexpected and improbable happen and to allow characters to succeed in extreme circumstances" because the players have fun that way. It works for some groups but for the most part those groups don't actually care about the "rules" anyway since the DM changes them on the fly to make the impossible possible. Personally, I don't like a game like that. I like the character to be able to attempt heroic actions that are against the odds but I want the rules of the world to be fixed so that when the character succeeds or fails it represents a significant event in the story ... something unlikely that actually worked ... not something unlikely that works because the DM adjusted the rules on the fly to make it possible so it wasn't actually all that unlikely or impressive after all.

The main problem without a consistent rule set is that specific players and characters will continue to push the limits of improbability and the DM has the choice of continuing to allow the impossible to be probable, which invariably irritates other players at the table who are looking for a sense of believability and realism in their role playing, or NOT, in which case the player/character doing the unreasonable starts to fail.

I have no problem with characters attempting unlikely tasks but I won't adjust the "Rules as Fun" to allow them to succeed for the sake of a cool moment that sacrifices the consistency of the underlying game world, the players find more than enough ways to have fun without having to change rules to accommodate unlikely events. On the other hand, if we make changes to RAW that the players find more enjoyable. that we continue to use and apply consistently, that all the players are aware of ... then that is Rules as Fun.

As for RAI, that is just a clarification of what the designers had in mind when a rule was created and every individual DM can agree or disagree and can decide to use it or not as they wish. Sometimes a DM agrees with RAI, sometimes they disagree and other times hearing RAI will give them some insight to how the mechanic works and they can either adopt the RAI version or modify the existing version to fit the individual DMs vision of how that specific rule should work.

P.S. These days, I run things almost entirely RAW (with interpretations for when RAW isn't clear), it doesn't make the game any less fun for me or the players. Fun comes from what the characters do and how they interact with the world, not the mechanics of how that interaction is implemented or adjudicated (as long as the DM is fair and consistent and as long as the same rules are applied to each player).

[Xervous]

RAI >= RAW > RAF. The intent of the rules is to get everyone on the same page for telling the story of the evening. If RAW were to consistently take a back seat to fun you’ve unleashed a nebulous metric on the game that will continuously be priced anew at every turn.

The group comes together with a shared understanding of what they’re aiming to play. They know what they Intend to accomplish and will be using an agreed upon set of Rules with the assumption that the former two produce fun within a wide band of tolerance.

Ditching a rule for a house rule when it breaks with the expectations framed by group consensus and understanding of the material is expected. Preferably most of these are outlined at session 0 when everyone is agreeing on what is being played and what rules are being used.

I’m having a hard time seeing places for RAF that don’t fall in the context of group consensus (RAI) and the framing of expectations for the game which ties us back to the selection of system. RAF strikes me as a vehicle for spontaneous gripes and narrowly detailed preferences to derail sessions as individual players feel entitled to protesting rules with minimal to no requirement for substance in their argument. Save that for after the session so we can discuss it as a group, off the table time clock, and examine if everything indeed lines up with the intent of what we’re doing here.

[stoutstien]

RTMS (rules that make sense) > RAI>RoC>RAW is how I view the rankings.

[ProsecutorGodot]

RAF>RAI>RAW

The difference isn't all that staggering, you really only move down the list if you can't make a decision at a glance of the rules. I suppose that technically puts RAW at the top position but I consider this to be a process done when you actually question the material, if what you read at a glance makes enough sense (and you haven't questioned whether it actually makes sense, looking at) then that's RAF before it's RAW.

At our table we place a lot of value in what the designers intended because for as much flak as we give them, a majority of what they put out is good working content that isn't breaking apart and close scrutiny. For the bits that do fall apart at a closer look, it's not usually difficult to find clarification.

If I can't find said clarification or disagree with it and I don't want to make a meaningful change from what's written, we have RAW. Should be noted that this scale goes in reverse when discussing things with members of another table, they should draw their conclusions with the least bias information which starts with the literal reading of the books, the intent behind the words and then the personal takes of myself or my table.

[Demonslayer666]

The RAW are the foundation for everything, but it is not how the game is played, the DM must make rulings.

You can place importance wherever you like, so there is no right answer, because RAW can be overlooked. It's all about playstyle.

I place a large part on RAW, because I want a consistent game. I dislike DM whim games, where RAW are tossed aside frequently and I feel like I am playing "Mother May I". The DM playing favorites is not fun for me.

I also highly value RAF, because that's why we get together, to have fun. I will bend rules and make exceptions from time to time to keep the fun rolling.

RAI I find interesting, but very rarely do they make any impact on my rulings.

My take: RAW and RAF are on pretty equal footing, advantage RAW. RAI don't matter.

[Zhorn]

RTMS (rules that make sense)

I place a large part on RAW, because I want a consistent game. I dislike DM whim games, where RAW are tossed aside frequently and I feel like I am playing "Mother May I". The DM playing favorites is not fun for me.
These are some very important points to consider I didn't put in my earlier post.
What might be fun for the DM might not be as fun for the players.
There's been a few instances I've had of DMs making impulse rulings on what they thought would be fun and having to talk with them for a bit to explain how some of their decisions effectively render some of the player's choices in their builds useless, lead to broken imbalances elsewhere, or come across as outright antagonistic to the players they are effecting.
Most of the DM's I've had were very reasonable about it when brought up in discussion, but there'll still be off-the-cuff rulings which I'd really rather they would instead take a moment to check with the books or not race into getting a ruling out so fast, when in many of the cases we might not need to know the ruling for another session of more down the line.

[MaxWilson]

RAW=Rules as Written
RAI= Rules as Intended
RAF= Rules as Fun

So how would you rank them in importance?

By inclination I would say:

1) RAW
2) RAF
3) RAI

By aspiration I say:

1) RAF
2) RAW
3) RAI

The importance of following RAW is to follow the Principle of Least Surprise for the players: the world should work pretty much the way the PHB has led them to expect, unless there's a good reason otherwise, which is hopefully documented in a house rules document. E.g. it would be bad if I as DM didn't tell you until you tried to cast a spell that at THIS table, spellcasting always requires a magic wand, even for spells that don't have Somatic or Material components. Players signed up to play one game and you shouldn't secretly substitute a different game.

The importance of RAI is to avoid getting distracted by little technicalities in the RAW that would also surprise players in a way that detracts from gameplay. The 5E's designers' intent here is less important than the intent the players will perceive the designers to have had, but a good example here is the original (pre-2015 errata) 5E rules for darkness, which made darkness work backward (creatures in darkness could not see creatures in the light, but creatures in the light could see creatures in darkness). Another example might be all of the numerous spells which work on "one creature you can see" within range--if players interpret this to mean "any creature to whom you have unobstructed line-of-sight", then that becomes the preferred reading and over the technical RAW (i.e. you can still cast that spell on invisible creatures, or if you're blinded, as long as you know where you're casting it). You can call that Rules As Read if you like, and statements from a WotC employee about what they think the intent was can (but don't have to) influence your RAR, but the principle here is basically just to avoid letting technicalities in RAW ruin the game.

There are times when the PHB rules are very clear, but the players (including but not limited to the DM) dislike the RAW. This is when we change the rules to be more fun. For me, one example is the rules for opportunity attacks: why does carefully retreating 5' away from a swordsman give him an extra chance to to hit me, when in reality a retreating opponent is harder to hit? At the same time, why does he not get that extra chance to hit me if I'm literally paralyzed in front of him? Sometimes you may just put up with these annoyances because they are RAW, but if they bother you enough you can change them.

Therefore my ranking is:

1.) You should usually follow the Rules as Written,
2.) Unless the Rules As Read (or Apparently Intended) say something different,
3.) Unless those rules bug you enough to change them.

Deciding whether that makes the RAW the most important or the least important is left as an exercise for the reader and/or the OP.

[Frogreaver]

Setting rules is greater than all!

[bid]

In a forum optimization discussion, RAW / clearly stated RAI is also important because it's the closest thing to common ground available to us; you can't have that much of a shared discussion about Schrodinger's Table Rulings, as it were.
RAW is important for forum shoppers. If you can find one that follows your narrative, you're golden.:smallbiggrin:
RAW is also fuzzy logic. The main RAI might represent 50% of the weight, but you can push and twist words to reach a 5% weight RAI. And sometimes a tiny sentence you missed can completely flip around the weighting.

RAI is how you build your consistent universe. Player agency demands consistent result more than RAF chaos.

RAF is when you do something outside the rules, you managed to succeed in an undefined way but you can tell your fish story at the inn.


RAI > RAW; RAF to cut it short.

[5eNeedsDarksun]

RaCS: Rules as Common Sense.
I was DMing last night when a player who was Grappled and Restrained turned himself into an Elephant. RAW there is no distinction in size for the grappling creature, an Ogteyeh (Which I've just horribly misspelled), but I allowed the Elephant a bonus action to escape rather than using it's entire action. Seemed reasonable to me and my players at the time, and my players know I will make similar rulings against them in similar situations.
As has been said here RAW is a good starting point. I'm not sure what RAF means, and if that is going to be focus then everyone at the table needs to agree on what is fun. But I'll stick with RaCS inspired by RAW.

[Kane0]

When discussing your group, RAF > RAI > RAW
When discussing between groups, RAW > RAI > RAF

[Chronos]

Fun is most important, because this is after all a game. But you have to look at the big picture, what's fun for the entire game, not what's fun right at any single moment.

A player comes up with a clever trick to defeat the enemy? Sure, that might be fun in the moment. But will it continue to be fun if the next enemy uses it against the players? Will it be fun if you're constantly changing the rules on the fly, so that players can't know what to expect? That's why we have the Rules As Written and/or As Intended: Not so that the game will be fun in the moment, but so that it'll continue to be fun.

[jaappleton]

RTMS (rules that make sense) > RAI>RoC>RAW is how I view the rankings.

RTMS. So many people forget this aspect.

Many treat RAW as the absolute final judgment, no exceptions.

.....except that RAW, a Fire Elemental that hits a Water Elemental technically sets it on fire.

So, maybe, take every instance of RAW with just a tiny grain of logic. :smalltongue:

[Keravath]

RaCS: Rules as Common Sense.
I was DMing last night when a player who was Grappled and Restrained turned himself into an Elephant. RAW there is no distinction in size for the grappling creature, an Ogteyeh (Which I've just horribly misspelled), but I allowed the Elephant a bonus action to escape rather than using it's entire action. Seemed reasonable to me and my players at the time, and my players know I will make similar rulings against them in similar situations.
As has been said here RAW is a good starting point. I'm not sure what RAF means, and if that is going to be focus then everyone at the table needs to agree on what is fun. But I'll stick with RaCS inspired by RAW.

ELEPHANT
Huge beast, unaligned

Grappling:
"The target of your grapple must be no more than one size larger than you, and it must be within your reach."

So if the creature that was grappling happened to be size medium ... the elephant automatically breaks the grapple since it is no longer a valid target. On the other hand, if the creature that was grappling was large or bigger then the huge elephant is within one size class so the grappler can still hold on.

It would be a DM call if they want to adjust the rules but if the character was restrained by a roper and changed into an elephant, I'd tend to think the elephant would still be restrained. A roper has a reach of 50' ... those are LONG tentacles.

[Frogreaver]

RTMS. So many people forget this aspect.

Many treat RAW as the absolute final judgment, no exceptions.

.....except that RAW, a Fire Elemental that hits a Water Elemental technically sets it on fire.

So, maybe, take every instance of RAW with just a tiny grain of logic. :smalltongue:

Yep. My favorite example of that is - I move straight up 30ft. Allowed by RAW. There's also not even a rule saying I will fall after doing so. So I move 30ft up and don't fall all by RAW.

[LudicSavant]

When it says you can walk 30 feet, it doesn't somehow mean that you can levitate 30 feet. The rules are written in natural language -- walking means walking, it's not a special 'code.'

I am reminded of a post by SevenSidedDie:


D&D 5th edition is not a keyword-driven game; quite the opposite: the designers deliberately avoided writing using keywords where possible in favour of describing the rules in what they dubbed “natural language.”* Lacking the word target is therefore not significant. What is significant is if the spell literally doesn't target you, in the normal meaning of the words.

Does the spell designate a creature as the direct recipient of its effect (i.e., what “targets” means in plain language)? Is that creature you? Then it targets you.


Ironic that, to convince a readership conditioned to look for keywords, they had to raise the phrase “natural language” to being nearly a keyword itself to indicate that the rules should be read as normal English!

[PhoenixPhyre]

When it says you can walk 30 feet, it doesn't somehow mean that you can levitate 30 feet. The rules are written in natural language -- walking means walking, it's not a special 'code.'

I am reminded of a post by SevenSidedDie:

Agreed. And this is one reason I don't find RAW all that meaningful. RAW as interpreted by online forums tends to revolve around close literal parsing and legalistic (although that's a bad word for it, because lawyers don't do it that way) readings that only make sense on keyword driven or similar text.

5e rules are designed to be read with a careful filter of common sense. And that's not how RAW is meant here most of the time.

[Unoriginal]

One could argue that the forum discussions are less about Rules as Written and much more about Rules as Read.

[PhoenixPhyre]

One could argue that the forum discussions are less about Rules as Written and much more about Rules as Read.

Right. What forums mean by RAW is one particular, textually unfounded interpretation of the text. All reading involves interpretation. But nothing in the 5e text demands a literal minded, context ignoring, keyword driven reading like what is called RAW.

[Frogreaver]

Right. What forums mean by RAW is one particular, textually unfounded interpretation of the text. All reading involves interpretation. But nothing in the 5e text demands a literal minded, context ignoring, keyword driven reading like what is called RAW.

My point exactly.


When it says you can walk 30 feet, it doesn't somehow mean that you can levitate 30 feet. The rules are written in natural language -- walking means walking, it's not a special 'code.'

I am reminded of a post by SevenSidedDie:

What Phoenix said above is exactly what my walking up example was meant to illustrate.

[LudicSavant]

Agreed. And this is one reason I don't find RAW all that meaningful. RAW as interpreted by online forums tends to revolve around close literal parsing and legalistic (although that's a bad word for it, because lawyers don't do it that way) readings that only make sense on keyword driven or similar text.

5e rules are designed to be read with a careful filter of common sense. And that's not how RAW is meant here most of the time.

I think the most inclusive definition of RAW would simply be "the rules that are written in the book." What it says on the tin. The rules as written.

And what rules are written in the book? Well, in order to determine that to the best of our ability, we should apply all the laws that govern good reading comprehension of natural language in general. Which means applying that careful filter of common sense, along with deriving meaning from context, and other such things.

I would then define RAI as "the rules as the designers intended them, but are not necessarily communicated in the book." Things that you can't tell without explicit dev statements about their intentions.

And then I'd define RAF as "what you change the rules to, in order to make the game more fun for you / your group."

I get where you're coming from about the attitude some folks have, but I think it's a little unfair to assume by default that whenever people talk about the rules as written in the book, they mean something other than just that: the rules written in the book. I suppose it strikes me as a little uncharitable -- assuming that people mean something unreasonable, when a perfectly reasonable interpretation of their words exists.

[Frogreaver]

...

I think it's a little unfair to assume by default that whenever people talk about the rules as written in the book, they mean something other than just that: the rules written in the book.

But RAW, meaning "The rules written in the book" are so utterly incomplete that those rules could never be a standalone source of meaning. At the very least you need some external framework, like "natural language". But then the "natural language" framework isn't really codified and so using natural language and "the rules written in the book" you end up with many competing interpretations that are often quite contradictory.

We've seen it play out again and again.
1. Dual hand crossbows and reloading them
2. Shield Master bonus action attack "order requirements"
3. Unarmed Attacks and what abilities work with them
4. etc.

[Unoriginal]

.....except that RAW, a Fire Elemental that hits a Water Elemental technically sets it on fire.

So, maybe, take every instance of RAW with just a tiny grain of logic. :smalltongue:



-Is the Water Elemental immune to fire damage? No.

-Is there any indicator that the Fire Elemental can't ignite non-flamable creatures? No.

-Is there any indicator that the Water Elemental can extinguish fire it enters contact with? No.


So, there is two possibility here:

-A piece of the Elemental Plane of Fire forced into an individual shape by a conjuration can ignites creatures which would otherwise be unable to burn, including creatures which are immune to fire (they ignite, but don't take damage), creatures made of solid stone, and creatures which are pieces of the Elemental Plane of Water forced into an individual shape by a conjuration.

-The Water Elemental can't be ignited despite not being particularly resistant to fire or able to affect fire in general because "water can't ignite", and anyone with "a tiny grain of logic" can see that. No word on how big a grain of logic you need to see that Stone and Iron Golems, as well as Earth Elementals, Galeb Dhurs, and Ice and Mud Mephits among others can't ignite when attacked by the Fire Elemental "because X substance can't ignite".


No word on how big a grain of logic you need to see that D&D 5e obeys the Real Life (TM) rules of physics, either, or at least that this particular instance of an embodiment of one of the Four Classical Elements brought from a parallel dimension by an user of magic in order to fight the embodiment of a different Element obeys the Real Life (TM) rules of physics.


This is why it's a lot less Rules as Written and much more Rules as Read.

[PhoenixPhyre]

But RAW, meaning "The rules written in the book" are so utterly incomplete that those rules could never be a standalone source of meaning. At the very least you need some external framework, like "natural language". But then the "natural language" framework isn't really codified and so using natural language and "the rules written in the book" you end up with many competing interpretations that are often quite contradictory.

We've seen it play out again and again.
1. Dual hand crossbows and reloading them
2. Shield Master bonus action attack "order requirements"
3. Unarmed Attacks and what abilities work with them
4. etc.

Exactly. "The rules written in the book" is stealing a base and smuggling in a particular, atextual set of assumptions about how to read the text. Meta-rules, if you wish. The words alone are not enough--you need canons of construction. And which canons you choose can radically alter the meaning you derive.

As expressed on the forums, RAW carries strong implications of (at least some of, depending on the user)
* parsing every minimal textual unit (word, phrase, clause, or sentence) in its most literal meaning and demanding that each MTU stand alone (instead of in the natural context of the ability, which is usually at the paragraph level)
* reading every ambiguity in favor of more player power and against DM involvement
* enforcing a single meaning for each word across all text, ignoring that words are polysemic--the meaning depends on context and may differ between contexts
* ignoring concepts broader than the exact text at question such as the nature of the game, implications of balance, common sense, prior knowledge about how things work, etc.
* looking for ambiguity whenever convenient to extract the desired, power-enhancing meaning

All of these things are called "legalistic" readings, when they'd get you entirely laughed out of court or even sanctioned if you tried them in a court of law. They're munchkin readings.

The text as written is a starting point. It does not demand to be read literally (ie the most charitable meaning of RAW). In fact, it demands to not be read that way--it is designed to be read for a particular purpose--to produce a fun, flexible game environment. Any reading that detracts from that is not the right reading. There is nothing special about being literal. In fact, when natural language is at issue, being literal is often the exact worst thing you can do. Because it forces an unnatural interpretation onto the text.

[Tanarii]

RaW is a quote from the book. It's always important starting place for any discussion or consideration when making a ruling.

But as soon as you move beyond a quote from the book to discussing or considering, there is no more RaW. There is only interpretation on intent of the rule, which is RAI. There's the dev's officially explained RAI (SAC), unofficial dev RAI (tweets etc), your own personal RAI, the rest of your tables RAI, and some other random guy on the internets RAI.

RAF sounds like a house rule, where you believe you've figured out the intent (RAI) and you're changing it to suit yourself or your table because fun. That's awesome. D&D has a long tradition of house rules. Do eet!

Of course, some of them would be very unfun for a lot of other people, and you may anger or lose your players if you go hog wild with house rules after session 0.

One that's missing here would be 5e's RaR (Ruling as Ruled). Technically that's just off the cuff DM RAI determined at the table, but 5e expects a lot of RaR to happen during play.

[x3n0n]

Agreed. And this is one reason I don't find RAW all that meaningful. RAW as interpreted by online forums tends to revolve around close literal parsing and legalistic (although that's a bad word for it, because lawyers don't do it that way) readings that only make sense on keyword driven or similar text.

5e rules are designed to be read with a careful filter of common sense. And that's not how RAW is meant here most of the time.

While I agree with you, they made some unfortunate decisions that encourage (demand?) keyword-like readings, like the (recently-discussed) overloading of the noun "weapon" vs the adjective "weapon" used to modify the word "attack".

Many proficient readers of natural language end up doubting how features "should" interact. Things like Sage Advice seem to be intended to build a common understanding of the authors' intents, as parsed and interpreted by the current czar.

At a given table, rules as fun and rules as common sense should be the shared priorities, I think. Someone at the table, preferably the DM, should have enough understanding to signal to the players when they are visibly deviating from "rules as read", so that they know not to rely on that interpretation at other tables.

As several have brought up, players at different tables have no recourse for common understanding other than "RAW/RAI" plus the aforementioned knowledge of their own tables' deviations from it.

Thankfully, rules as common sense and rules as written are remarkably close most of the time. Fora like this board tend to discuss the places where they diverge.

In general, for a given table, you can just make a call and go with it. If a player is knowingly using "rules as read" to violate the table's understanding of rules as common sense, the DM needs to mediate that somehow. As a player, if I expect to use something that might be in doubt, I think it's my duty to discuss that with the DM out of session, showing the written passage that supports my interpretation, and negotiate that in advance.

[Unoriginal]

I get where you're coming from about the attitude some folks have, but I think it's a little unfair to assume by default that whenever people talk about the rules as written in the book, they mean something other than just that: the rules written in the book. I suppose it strikes me as a little uncharitable -- assuming that people mean something unreasonable, when a perfectly reasonable interpretation of their words exists.

It's not "assuming that people means something unreasonable", it's "assuming that people are discussing what they have read and interpreted, not what is written".

Yes, a perfectly reasonable interpretation of their words exists, and in the same way there is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of anything written in the books. But it is still an interpretation.

Even if everyone agree on a specific interpretation of a specific line, it is still an interpretation. All communications are made through filters and affected by the communicators' assumptions.

For example, I've seen people argue that Mordenkainen's Hound included a mind-reading effect, because the spell text says the Hound attacks creatures who are hostile toward the caster and therefore (in the interpretation of those persons) it meant that it was capable of detecting all hostile intents, no exception, even if it's someone who the caster has no reason to suspect of anything and who hasn't done anything hostile yet but plans to do so in the future.

It's their interpretation, as they've read the text through their own filters and assumptions. I can't agree with it, even if the rule as written are the same for both of us, because the rules as read aren't the same.



The text as written is a starting point. It does not demand to be read literally (ie the most charitable meaning of RAW). In fact, it demands to not be read that way--it is designed to be read for a particular purpose--to produce a fun, flexible game environment.

Exactly.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'll be even more direct.

In my carefully considered opinion, the only things that matters are "are you and your table(s) having fun with the rules you're using?" and "could we be having more fun if we changed the rules we're using." If the answer to both is "no", then you should stop playing. If the answer to the first is no and the second yes, then look for changes to be made. Those may involve changing the entire framework you're using--there's nothing wrong with that. Or they may involve coming closer to the defaults presented in the text. Or the reverse. But only you and your table can answer these questions. No one else can tell you you're playing wrong or "breaking the rules." Because the only binding rules are the ones you and your table have chosen to play by.

The source of these rules is rather irrelevant. The text of the rulebooks presents a set of (hopefully) carefully-chosen defaults. But they're just that. Defaults that should work for many tables and that should play nicely together. But if they don't work for you, change them. They're not a binding set of laws--they're default configuration values. Sure, changing some of them has more drastic effects on how the rest of the system hangs together and you should be aware of that. But the "rules as written" don't matter. They're not in charge. They're not special in any way, other than that they're defaults.

Does this make it harder to come to agreement on forums about who's doing it wrong? Sure. But IMO that's a feature, not a bug. The game is not designed to be discussed on forums. It's designed to be played. By people who trust each other and are all working to have a fun game. And the two designs have very different requirements--things that work well for one may not work well for the other. But I'd be willing to entirely sacrifice the first if keeping it hampers the second goal.

[LudicSavant]

Even if everyone agree on a specific interpretation of a specific line, it is still an interpretation.

I already agree with this. :smallconfused:


It's not "assuming that people means something unreasonable" it's "assuming that people are discussing what they have read, not what is written".

I feel like you're getting our positions mixed up. My position was that rules as written is just an interpretation of what's written in the book.

What I was referring to as uncharitable was PhoenixPhyre's statement that 'most of the time, RAW means not applying common sense' and 'munchkin readings.' In which instance, he is very much assuming that people mean something unreasonable when they use the term RAW.

I think it would be pretty insulting to anyone who said RAW is important in this thread to assume that they meant 'not applying common sense and 'munchkin' readings are important,' for example. I sincerely doubt that was what many, if any, people in this thread intended when they said they thought RAW was important in one way or another.


5e rules are designed to be read with a careful filter of common sense. And that's not how RAW is meant here most of the time.

They're munchkin readings.

[Unoriginal]

I already agree with this.



I was referring to where PhoenixPhyre says that RAW means 'not applying common sense most of the time' and 'munchkin readings.' In which instance, he is very much assuming that people mean something unreasonable.

Then I apologize for misunderstanding the point of contention.

In that case I agree that interpreting every instance of people doing it as a deliberate attempt of munkining is uncharitable. Although it *does* exist (I even recall someone on this forum arguing that attempting to exact-word-spells-until-they-give-more-power was normal because it was what powerful casters in-universe did), it is much more likely that people genuinely believe the interpretation they're arguing in favor of.

Someone who think casters are/should be more powerful will in general naturally read the text of a spell in a way that gives the caster more power, for example.

[MaxWilson]

Agreed. And this is one reason I don't find RAW all that meaningful. (A) RAW as interpreted by online forums tends to revolve around close literal parsing and legalistic (although that's a bad word for it, because lawyers don't do it that way) readings that only make sense on keyword driven or similar text.

5e rules are designed to be read with a careful filter of common sense. And that's not how RAW is meant here most of the time.

To be fair, it's not just online forums--WotC's own communications via Twitter and Sage Advice have this same frustrating tendency. Examples abound.

It was also a mistake for WotC to fail to define up front and typographically distinguish the keywords that do exist in the PHB, e.g. attack, melee weapon, bonus action, charmed.


For example, (A) I've seen people argue that Mordenkainen's Hound included a mind-reading effect, because the spell text says the Hound attacks creatures who are hostile toward the caster and therefore (in the interpretation of those persons) it meant that it was capable of detecting all hostile intents, no exception, even if it's someone who the caster has no reason to suspect of anything and who hasn't done anything hostile yet but plans to do so in the future.

It's their interpretation, as they've read the text through their own filters and assumptions. I can't agree with it, even if the rule as written are the same for both of us, because the rules as read aren't the same.

(A) Based on my memory of that conversation, it's less "argue" than "opine." You were asking me for various hypothetical rulings and I gave you my answer. "Argue" would imply that I was trying to persuade you to adopt the same ruling, but it was already clear at that point that we simply read the text differently and that you were going to have to break the tie with your tie-breaker privileges.

[LudicSavant]

(I even recall someone on this forum arguing that attempting to exact-word-spells-until-they-give-more-power was normal because it was what powerful casters in-universe did)

Huh. That's one I'm glad to have not seen yet xD

But I can believe it. This is the internet, after all.

[da newt]

Consistent and agreed upon rules are the most important in my opinion. RAW, RAF, RAI, RACS, - doesn't make a lick of difference to the game. What is important is that everyone at the table has a common understanding of the rules. As long as there is agreement, there are no issues. The rest is irrelevant.

[Frogreaver]

What I was referring to as uncharitable was PhoenixPhyre's statement that 'most of the time, RAW means not applying common sense' and 'munchkin readings.' In which instance, he is very much assuming that people mean something unreasonable when they use the term RAW.

Unless you mean something else entirely by common sense than we do I cannot understand what you are objecting. Someone attempting to interject a common sense interpretation into a RAW debate is pretty much always told "that's not RAW".

[MoiMagnus]

When looking at RAW vs RAI, there are two main situations:

1) The RAI comes from additional informations (SA, twitter, ...) from outside the books, that clarify the opinion of some of the devs of the game. In that case RAW vs RAI is often a debate about the validity of those additional sources. And I totally understand peoples who don't put a lot of weight on random tweets about rules clarifications.
2) The RAI comes from interpreting with common sense the text to try to deduce what the dev intended to mean when they chose those words. In that case RAW vs RAI is either "Unreasonable literal interpretation VS Common sense" or "Balanced interpretation VS Ridiculous over-interpretation".

[Keravath]

Right. What forums mean by RAW is one particular, textually unfounded interpretation of the text. All reading involves interpretation. But nothing in the 5e text demands a literal minded, context ignoring, keyword driven reading like what is called RAW.

Lol. I like the idea of Rules as Read. On the other hand, the description of "one particular, textually unfounded interpretation of the text" is clearly incorrect given the number of arguments that develop on these forums. If there was only ONE reading of how the rules are written we wouldn't have any arguments. If the general interpretations used were "textually unfounded" then there would be nothing but argument.

There are some rules that are clearly written, easy for the DM interpret and the vast majority of people understand that is what the rules are saying and may even play that way.

e.g. Initiative is a dexterity ability check where you roll a d20, add your dexterity modifier and anything else that might affect that specific die roll. Turn order is then resolved from highest to lowest with ties being resolved with a die roll or other system at the DMs discretion.

On the other hand, there are other rules that are written in such a way that what they intend is unclear or which don't really make much sense to some people. The rules for vision in areas with both dark and light areas require a dose of common sense and several DM rulings to get something workable. How the spell Darkness works has at least two camps that are based on (at least from the point of view of the proponents) very reasonable readings of the relevant rules. Neither side of that debate lies in the territory of "textually unfounded". A similar case can be made regarding total cover and the interpretation that saran wrap, a clear window or a wall of force is sufficient to provide a target total cover.

Anyway, there are different ways to read the rules and these different ways can offer insight to folks running their own games which is where the value of forums like these lies.

[MaxWilson]

When looking at RAW vs RAI, there are two main situations:

1) The RAI comes from additional informations (SA, twitter, ...) from outside the books, that clarify the opinion of some of the devs of the game. In that case RAW vs RAI is often a debate about the validity of those additional sources. And I totally understand peoples who don't put a lot of weight on random tweets about rules clarifications.
2) The RAI comes from interpreting with common sense the text to try to deduce what the dev intended to mean when they chose those words. In that case RAW vs RAI is either "Unreasonable literal interpretation VS Common sense" or "Balanced interpretation VS Ridiculous over-interpretation".

Good point. Take the people who argue that Necromancers gain permanent HP from temporary sources like Aid and Shapechange because a 10th level Necromancer's HP maximum "cannot be reduced" because they are Inured To Undeath. 99% of us know perfectly well that preventing the end of an temporary increase is not the point of Inured To Undeath, but is me saying that it doesn't work that way based on RAW ("the rule clearly isn't saying that") or RAI ("technically the rule says that but it should have been written slightly differently")?

The boundaries between RAW and RAI are themselves subjective, and ultimately not important. All that really matters is adhering to the rules the players are expecting***, based on their PHBs and/or prior experience, to maximize the players' ability to reason and act effectively within the gameworld that you've created for their and your entertainment.

*** Except where you have a good reason to change them.

[Unoriginal]

(A) Based on my memory of that conversation, it's less "argue" than "opine." You were asking me for various hypothetical rulings and I gave you my answer. "Argue" would imply that I was trying to persuade you to adopt the same ruling, but it was already clear at that point that we simply read the text differently and that you were going to have to break the tie with your tie-breaker privileges.

While true on your end, we weren't the only two persons in that conversation.



The boundaries between RAW and RAI are themselves subjective, and ultimately not important. All that really matters is adhering to the rules the players are expecting***, based on their PHBs and/or prior experience, to maximize the players' ability to reason and act effectively within the gameworld that you've created for their and your entertainment.

*** Except where you have a good reason to change them.

I agree with that, with the caveat that "I think something different would be preferable " is in itself a good reason to change something.

In any case, no matter why you're changing something, it's important to be clear you're changing it so that the players can take it into account. If it's a ruling during the session for something that just came up and you hadn't thought about it before, fine, but be open about it. If it's something that's part of what you modified before the campaign's start, fine, but be clear about it in the session 0.

[Frogreaver]

Good point. Take the people who argue that Necromancers gain permanent HP from temporary sources like Aid and Shapechange because a 10th level Necromancer's HP maximum "cannot be reduced" because they are Inured To Undeath. 99% of us know perfectly well that preventing the end of an temporary increase is not the point of Inured To Undeath, but is me saying that it doesn't work that way based on RAW ("the rule clearly isn't saying that") or RAI ("technically the rule says that but it should have been written slightly differently")?

The boundaries between RAW and RAI are themselves subjective, and ultimately not important. All that really matters is adhering to the rules the players are expecting***, based on their PHBs and/or prior experience, to maximize the players' ability to reason and act effectively within the gameworld that you've created for their and your entertainment.

*** Except where you have a good reason to change them.

I think the deciding factor there for most people is power level.

Take the Bard's Jack of All Trades. I think a good case can be made that initiative wasn't intended to be something that ability added to. Yet most all of us play that it adds to initiative. Why? Because RAW "technically says it does" and it's not such a huge power boost that anyone is going to fret over it. Contrast that to your Necromancer comparison example.

[Satori01]

Someone attempting to interject a common sense interpretation into a RAW debate is pretty much always told "that's not RAW".

Indeed. I also think it interesting that "RAW" is interpreted to mean tactical rules interactions.

By RAW a game could be ran entirely by Theatre of the Mind, entirely through square or hex based combat, or through a combination of the two.

By RAW, a game may have feats and multi-classing, it might have some of these options, it may have none.

By RAW and by intent two very much Rules as Written games can be quite different, in form.

"That's not RAW" has not been used on this message board, (in my experience), as full throated defense of the diverse panoply of D&D games possible.

The phrase is being used to invalidate, as a matter of course, the position, without empathetic examination.

This is a bit of a Non Sequitur....but a strict textual keyword analysis is not applicable to 5e, despite what Jeremy Crawford states in this quote from the Sage Advice Compendium:

Here’s a bit of wording minutia: we would write “melee- weapon attack” (with a hyphen) if we meant an attack with a melee weapon

As the wording of Divine Strike and Improved Divine Strike in the PHB amply demonstrate, the level of precision and rigor of technical language that JC states is present....is not present in the PHB.

Clarity comes from having the "Right View"....insisting that the distinction between melee weapon attacks and attacks with a melee weapon is applied universally and without error in the PHB, is a prevarication.