By RAW, the distinction between RAW and houserules doesn't exist.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Searched D&D Beyond for the strings "house rule" or "houserule". No relevant results.

Searched D&D Beyond for the strings "RAW" or "Rules as Written". Only relevant result is in the Sage Advice Compendium, which is not, by itself, part of the rules text (being "merely" official rulings). And goes on to say that "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions." So if SAC is RAW, then DM rulings are even more so RAW-mandated (not a separate category of thing at all)--the DM's rulings are the rules.

Hence, there is no such thing (by RAW) as RAW. Or houserules. There are only rules. And those rules are whatever the DM + players decide to play by.

Thus, if you claim to obey RAW only, you're not following RAW. Or at least invoking concepts outside of the text to do so, which contradicts a RAW-only stance.

Basically, my point is that we should worry less about picking apart the text and more about figuring out what works for your particular table in each circumstance. A DM's ruling, accepted by the table, is the highest and only true rule that exists. So we should work on making those rulings better, whether that means closer to the text[1], further from the text, or disregarding the text entirely.

[1] as it often does. Because the defaults set out in the PHB, DMG, and MM, along with the variants in other books, form a pretty darn good framework IMO. Not a perfect one, and not one suited to every game. But most of the time, aligning on those defaults is a good start.

[MoiMagnus]

RAW/RAI/RAF, as I understand them, are more mindsets than precise definition of "what rules are accepted or not".

RAW mindset tries to rely on as few sources as possible. The more you add sources, the more they can contradict themselves. This is even worse if one of those sources is a human being (the DM) and not a written book, as you can't access the full content of someone's brain at any moment. Having to "ask your DM" to know how a certain hypothetical scenario will resolve is a failure from the rules, but is sometimes a necessary evil as exhaustive rules would be unpractical and unreadable.

RAI mindset tries to ensure reasonable behaviours. This mindset accept that rules are inherently imperfect, and that one should only trust them in their "typical" use case, and assume that corner cases are most likely not correctly handled by the rules as written.

RAF mindset favours case-by-case approach, where the question is not "what rule should have written in the rulebook" but "what rule, in this very specific circumstance, leads to the most interesting and fun resolution for everyone".

[Greywander]

The rules themselves are the RAW. There is no reason for the rules to talk about houserules or homebrew, and even if they did, all they could do is acknowledge their existence. Homebrew is by definition something made up by a player/DM/random internet person, and not something from the rules, so there isn't any meaningful way the rules could talk about homebrew. The closest it gets is with optional and variant rules, which by definition are not homebrew and a form of RAW since they appear in the original rules. The DMG also tries to give you tools to create your own content and to tweak the rules, but aside from the example variant/optional rules, it can't say anything about a specific homebrew because it has no way of knowing what that homebrew is (and even if it did, by acknowledging it in the rules it would become a form of RAW).

In fewer words, homebrew is by nature beyond the scope of RAW. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be homebrew anymore, it would be RAW.


Basically, my point is that we should worry less about picking apart the text and more about figuring out what works for your particular table in each circumstance. A DM's ruling, accepted by the table, is the highest and only true rule that exists. So we should work on making those rulings better, whether that means closer to the text[1], further from the text, or disregarding the text entirely.
This is true, but it requires (a) that we're talking about a specific table, rather than theorycrafting or making white room analysis, and (b) that the poster includes all relevant houserules. If someone just makes a thread asking how an ability or spell works, all we can do is respond with the RAW, and possibly how different DMs might interpret it differently. We might even include our own houserules, but those are of limited usefulness in most cases unless the poster is the DM and amenable to incorporating new houserules.

Basically, RAW is the foundation on which houserules are built. We all build on the same foundation, but not all of us build the same thing. If I don't know what you're building, I can only talk about the foundation itself.

[NorthernPhoenix]

Obsession with RAW is, imo, a relic from the times when the game was primarily Player VS DM.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The rules themselves are the RAW. There is no reason for the rules to talk about houserules or homebrew, and even if they did, all they could do is acknowledge their existence. Homebrew is by definition something made up by a player/DM/random internet person, and not something from the rules, so there isn't any meaningful way the rules could talk about homebrew. The closest it gets is with optional and variant rules, which by definition are not homebrew and a form of RAW since they appear in the original rules. The DMG also tries to give you tools to create your own content and to tweak the rules, but aside from the example variant/optional rules, it can't say anything about a specific homebrew because it has no way of knowing what that homebrew is (and even if it did, by acknowledging it in the rules it would become a form of RAW).

In fewer words, homebrew is by nature beyond the scope of RAW. If it weren't, then it wouldn't be homebrew anymore, it would be RAW.


This is true, but it requires (a) that we're talking about a specific table, rather than theorycrafting or making white room analysis, and (b) that the poster includes all relevant houserules. If someone just makes a thread asking how an ability or spell works, all we can do is respond with the RAW, and possibly how different DMs might interpret it differently. We might even include our own houserules, but those are of limited usefulness in most cases unless the poster is the DM and amenable to incorporating new houserules.

Basically, RAW is the foundation on which houserules are built. We all build on the same foundation, but not all of us build the same thing. If I don't know what you're building, I can only talk about the foundation itself.

Except it never claims itself to be such a thing. RAW, by its own rules doesn't exist. There is no foundation in the text for the distinction between houserules and RAW. In fact, the text itself tells us to go beyond the text, that the rules are the whole package. Artificially limiting yourself to supposed "RAW" isn't a foundation--it's picking two or three stones and calling it a house.

And my claim is that we can talk about what people are doing. Takes more words and less telling people they're wrong, but it works. It goes like this.

P1: Here's what we're doing, and here are the problems we're having. What can we do differently?
P2-N: Discussion of root of problem, discussion of things people have tried.

Or exactly how fruitful discussions about just about everything else work.

You know what doesn't work?

P1: Here's what we're doing, and here are the problems we're having. What can we do differently?
P2: That's not RAW. RAW says <thing>.
P3: P2, you're wrong about RAW.
<spongebob announcer voice>46 pages later</>
P2-N: <Still going around in the same circles>

And that's all that RAW gets you. Arguments about the meaning of words. Because the text, by itself, settles nothing. It's a starting point for further discussion, but only a tiny one and only one of many. And the further discussion and elaboration is what's important.

RAW is not a useful concept on its own terms. It settles no disputes, because it has no existence. Putting the text up on some pedestal is pointless. It neither helps out discussions nor does it make games better. And that's the only use for such a concept in the first place. So it doesn't do its job, it's inherently self-contradictory (making claims to the prominence of the text without any support from the text as to the text's prominence).

Edit: phrasing it a different way:

RAW is one interpretive method among many. But it'sone interpretive method whose underlying premise is contradicted directly by the thing it purports to use as its own exclusive source of truth--the text itself. Read with any sense, the text forbids the exclusive use of the text. It's directly ruled out. So a focus on RAW is not RAW-legal. By RAW, you have to go beyond RAW. And that means we're better off discarding the idea entirely and talking about rules as a whole thing including text and application on the same footing. Not making this artificial and self-contradictory distinction between sancrosanct RAW and "houserules".

[Anonymouswizard]

Searched D&D Beyond for the strings "house rule" or "houserule". No relevant results.

Searched D&D Beyond for the strings "RAW" or "Rules as Written". Only relevant result is in the Sage Advice Compendium, which is not, by itself, part of the rules text (being "merely" official rulings). And goes on to say that "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."

I'm not sure I get the logic here.

Of course 'house rule' isn't in the rules, it's a concept about how the rules are changed in a particular instance. The same with RAW, it's a style or philosophy, or possibly a tag meaning 'we are only considering the primary source'. They have no reason to be in the rules.

Now, the rules in 5e intentionally do not go to some places, like how hard it is to break down a locked door, and whether that's a good or bad thing will depend on you. 5e is not intended to be played in a RAW environment because it intentionally ignores edge cases even if it's bothered to define the standard case. But that doesn't stop the idea of RAW applying, even if Rogue/Monks grabbing each other to dash quicker isn't going to come up in-game (or whatever RAW exploit you wish to use).

However RAW is less important than in 3.5, if only because there's less rules to make weird edge case scenarios less likely. And the Playground. with it's relative focus on TO compared to the D&D community at large, does tend to blow it out of proportion a little bit. So I guess I agree with the second half of your post, in general?

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not sure I get the logic here.

Of course 'house rule' isn't in the rules, it's a concept about how the rules are changed in a particular instance. The same with RAW, it's a style or philosophy, or possibly a tag meaning 'we are only considering the primary source'. They have no reason to be in the rules.

Now, the rules in 5e intentionally do not go to some places, like how hard it is to break down a locked door, and whether that's a good or bad thing will depend on you. 5e is not intended to be played in a RAW environment because it intentionally ignores edge cases even if it's bothered to define the standard case. But that doesn't stop the idea of RAW applying, even if Rogue/Monks grabbing each other to dash quicker isn't going to come up in-game (or whatever RAW exploit you wish to use).

However RAW is less important than in 3.5, if only because there's less rules to make weird edge case scenarios less likely. And the Playground. with it's relative focus on TO compared to the D&D community at large, does tend to blow it out of proportion a little bit. So I guess I agree with the second half of your post, in general?

But for RAW to be a thing, it would have to be stated in the text. Because that's all RAW allows--the text. So the fact that RAW is not commanded in the text (and is in fact contradicted by the rest of the text) means that we can't meaningfully use RAW as some benchmark. Because to do so is to violate RAW itself--any use of RAW is self-refuting.

Put another way: saying "X is RAW" doesn't buy you anything. It means absolutely nothing useful about statement X. We can (and should) discuss the value of statement X. And we can do so in reference to the text[1] as well as any other source. It's the reasoning, not the presence or absence in the text that matters for its value.

[1] "If you accept X, then Y and Z (textual elements) become issues because reasons P, Q, and M." This is a valid form of argumentation regardless of the status of X in the text (or not). What it isn't is a knockdown, game-winning argument. Which is ok, because winning isn't the point here. Or shouldn't be, IMO.

[Anonymouswizard]

But for RAW to be a thing, it would have to be stated in the text. Because that's all RAW allows--the text. So the fact that RAW is not commanded in the text (and is in fact contradicted by the rest of the text) means that we can't meaningfully use RAW as some benchmark. Because to do so is to violate RAW itself--any use of RAW is self-refuting.

RAW is important to the 3.5 community, so please give me a reference as to where it appears in the 3.5 books. I never thought to check/

I think you're making a step here that's leading you down some incorrect logic. When cooking I can follow a recipe or I can modify it. Nowhere in the cookbooks that I own are the words 'following the recipe'. at least to my knowledge. Does this mean that following the recipe isn't part of cooking? And yes, many of the recipes do talk about changing them up and varying them, sometimes in very freeform ways.

Now arguing that GM rulings are RAW is something I can agree with, I'm certain that's in our primary source. But I don't think you need the rules to define the idea of Rules As Written for it to be a concept that exists, just like how my cookbook doesn't have to define following the recipe.

[Pex]

Not to get into another debate, just expressing my point.

Accepting what you said is true, that's the problem I have with 5E with regards to skill use specifically and vague rules in general. I want there to be a RAW, a universal common ground in which I can play the game with whoever DMs and not have to relearn how to play while I'm playing. "Rules As Contract" as you described many moons ago.

[PhoenixPhyre]

RAW is important to the 3.5 community, so please give me a reference as to where it appears in the 3.5 books. I never thought to check/

I think you're making a step here that's leading you down some incorrect logic. When cooking I can follow a recipe or I can modify it. Nowhere in the cookbooks that I own are the words 'following the recipe'. at least to my knowledge. Does this mean that following the recipe isn't part of cooking? And yes, many of the recipes do talk about changing them up and varying them, sometimes in very freeform ways.

Now arguing that GM rulings are RAW is something I can agree with, I'm certain that's in our primary source. But I don't think you need the rules to define the idea of Rules As Written for it to be a concept that exists, just like how my cookbook doesn't have to define following the recipe.

That's just it. Cookbooks do (at least the good ones) have text about when to follow and when not to follow them. And so does the DMG (at least in 5e). I can't speak for 3.5e either.

RAW (as a mindset) goes beyond that. It claims that only the text matters. That you can't use anything else and be RAW-compliant. That is, it says that modifications are fundamentally not rules. And in doing so, it contradicts itself. Because in order for that to be the case, you'd have to have text claiming primacy of the rules inside the rules themselves, otherwise you can't claim that RAW is, in and of itself, binding. And there aren't such. In fact, there's text that points in the opposite direction.

The books do not claim any special meaning for themselves. In fact, they only claim to be guidance and packaged defaults should you choose to use them. So RAW-primacy fails. By its own standard.


Not to get into another debate, just expressing my point.

Accepting what you said is true, that's the problem I have with 5E with regards to skill use specifically and vague rules in general. I want there to be a RAW, a universal common ground in which I can play the game with whoever DMs and not have to relearn how to play while I'm playing. "Rules As Contract" as you described many moons ago.

You can want that, but you're wanting something 5e has consistently refused to supply. You can want a pitchfork to work as a soup spoon as well, but you'll be disappointed.

[Mr Adventurer]

Searched D&D Beyond for the strings "house rule" or "houserule". No relevant results.

Searched D&D Beyond for the strings "RAW" or "Rules as Written". Only relevant result is in the Sage Advice Compendium, which is not, by itself, part of the rules text (being "merely" official rulings). And goes on to say that "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions." So if SAC is RAW, then DM rulings are even more so RAW-mandated (not a separate category of thing at all)--the DM's rulings are the rules.

Like... I'm not arguing with you, but this is an.absurd way to prove your premise. Who even cares about D&D Beyond? I've never used it.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Like... I'm not arguing with you, but this is an.absurd way to prove your premise. Who even cares about D&D Beyond? I've never used it.

DND Beyond is being used in this instance as a stand-in for all of the written literature of 5E. Saying "who even cares about DND Beyond" in this case is literally "Who even cares about all the books published in 5E"

DND Beyond is being used to Ctrl+f (RAW, House Rules) in all of the published books.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Like... I'm not arguing with you, but this is an.absurd way to prove your premise. Who even cares about D&D Beyond? I've never used it.

It gives full-text searches of the core books. That's all. I could have done the same thing manually by exhaustively searching the physical books, but the warthog kneels.

[Unoriginal]

If I may:

It's not that 5e doesn't have what people would call RAW, it's that the text itself of 5e says "[what people call RAW] isn't important, the DM's rulings are what matters".


The term "RAW" or "Rules as Written" not being in the book doesn't demonstrate anything by itself, because it is a fan-made term.

So you're correct that this fan-made term applies to something that this edition does not value, but the premise of your OP does not particularly have a link with that fact.

Same way that I can't demonstrate there is no such thing as an half-caster in 5e by showing the term is absent from every single book.

[Tanarii]

RAW exists. There's several books full of written rules.

It's just they all have to filter through our individual interpretations, and some people (including me when I'm backsliding) like to refer to something other than a direct quote of the Rules as Written as RAW. If it's not a quote, it's not RAW. It's interpretation.

[Unoriginal]

RAW exists. There's several books full of written rules.

It's just they all have to filter through our individual interpretations, and some people (including me when I'm backsliding) like to refer to something other than a direct quote of the Rules as Written as RAW. If it's not a quote, it's not RAW. It's interpretation.

Even if it's a direct quote, it's still interpretation. Anything that someone read is interpreted by that someone.


Which is why Rules as Read would be more accurate.

[Greywander]

I see what you're saying now. You are correct, by RAW there is no distinction between RAW and houserules. If your DM is using houserules, the rules don't differentiate between the rules from the book (RAW) and those rules which your DM has added to the game. There's not really any point in having the rules themselves distinguish between RAW and houserules, the only thing that matters during the game is what the rules actually are, which will include both RAW and houserules. Outside of the game, it's a different story, and a meaningful discussion about the rules will need to make a distinction between RAW and houserules.

Think of it like this: RAW is unmodded Skyrim, and houserules/homebrew are your mods. Even if most people play Skyrim with mods, they don't all use the same mods. If you don't know what mods people will be running, then it's easier to go by what unmodded Skyrim would be like, and then just hope that whatever mods they have don't affect what you're saying, e.g. if you're writing a walkthrough for a dungeon. If you know someone is using a specific mod, you might say something different if the mod makes changes that affect what you're talking about.

This is why I'm saying that RAW is a good starting point for a conversation. If someone presents a houserule from the get-go, I can take that into account in my discussion, but if they don't post any houserules then I have no way of knowing that houserules they're using, if they're even using any.

Also, I do think there's some value to having discussions about RAW. A good example of this would be with DMs who don't understand the rules and it's ruining the game for someone. For example, if the DM only lets the rogue Sneak Attack while behind a target (mixing it up conceptually with a "backstab"). That's not what the rules say; you don't need to be behind your target. There are restrictions, but that's not one of them.

Oh yeah, another example I heard was a DM who had heard that wizards were better than martials, and interpreted that as a rule, not a criticism. The DM wouldn't let the fighter grapple an enemy wizard because the wizard had cast fly. Never mind that the wizard had ended his turn within reach of the fighter, and that the fighter had the superior Athletics bonus, the DM ruled that the wizard could just fly away if the fighter reached out to grab him, because magic. No roll, nothing. There was more to the story, but I forget the rest.

Some DMs just don't know the rules and run the game incorrectly. It's not that they've made a conscious decision to change the rules, they just don't know what the rules are in the first place. When it comes to creating houserules and homebrew, I think it's really important to have a thorough understanding of what the RAW is. If you don't have a good grasp on the RAW, then your modifications and additions to the RAW are going to suffer.

[MaxWilson]

Searched D&D Beyond for the strings "house rule" or "houserule". No relevant results.

Searched D&D Beyond for the strings "RAW" or "Rules as Written". Only relevant result is in the Sage Advice Compendium, which is not, by itself, part of the rules text (being "merely" official rulings). And goes on to say that "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions." So if SAC is RAW, then DM rulings are even more so RAW-mandated (not a separate category of thing at all)--the DM's rulings are the rules.

Hence, there is no such thing (by RAW) as RAW. Or houserules. There are only rules. And those rules are whatever the DM + players decide to play by.

Thus, if you claim to obey RAW only, you're not following RAW. Or at least invoking concepts outside of the text to do so, which contradicts a RAW-only stance.

Basically, my point is that we should worry less about picking apart the text and more about figuring out what works for your particular table in each circumstance. A DM's ruling, accepted by the table, is the highest and only true rule that exists. So we should work on making those rulings better, whether that means closer to the text[1], further from the text, or disregarding the text entirely.

[1] as it often does. Because the defaults set out in the PHB, DMG, and MM, along with the variants in other books, form a pretty darn good framework IMO. Not a perfect one, and not one suited to every game. But most of the time, aligning on those defaults is a good start.

"RAW" exists but it's not a compliment. It's often a way of drawing attention to a deficiency, like the fact that technically by RAW fog and natural darkness are treated as visually similar phenomena when in actuality one is opaque and the other is not. I'm not going to get into the controversy here about whether "5E darkness is opaque by RAW" or "5E fog merely obscures what is within it by RAW and not what's beyond it"--suffice to say that both are ways of expressing dissatisfaction with RAW.

"House rules" is a communication document letting your players know in advance how this insurance of D&D is different from other D&D they may have played elsewhere, so they can avoid unpleasant surprises. E.g. "There is no Simulacrum spell in this game" is definitely a change many players player will want to know about at character creation time, as is "clerics get bonus spell slots for high Wisdom per the AD&D Wisdom table," and "elves cannot be raised from the dead" is another. House rules have a complexity cost attached and need to be justified, but undocumented rules changes carry a different kind of cost to the gameplay experience, especially when they are adverse to the players being affected.

Custom content creation is generally not worth documenting as a house rule, but if you run a campaign where e.g. Magic Resistance allows you a chance to outright ignore spells instead of just getting advantage on the saving throw if the spell allows one, that's a big enough and wide enough content change that I think it's worth documenting. YMMV though.

[Taevyr]

P1: Here's what we're doing, and here are the problems we're having. What can we do differently?
P2: That's not RAW. RAW says <thing>.
P3: P2, you're wrong about RAW.
<spongebob announcer voice>46 pages later</>
P2-N: <Still going around in the same circles>

Surely something as ridiculous as this hardly ever happens, and definitely not in threads on this very forum

EDIT: And I'll have to agree with the people saying that RAW is simply every rule set in official 5e writing, such as the PHB, Xanathar's, and the sage advice compendium. Key here is that house rulings are RAW, but not any of those potential house rules themselves, as the RAW specifically mentions them as a DM just doing what he has to do.

In practice though: you can discuss RAW/RAI/RAF as much as you want, but the DM always has the final say. A good DM'll likely be willing to discuss his rulings, or at the very least explain them while remaining adamant, and a bad DM can't force you to continue playing with them anyway. As always, it all comes down to properly communicating with your players/DM.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Surely something as ridiculous as this hardly ever happens, and definitely not in threads on this very forum

Why never!

Seriously, that thread was what pushed me over the edge into taking a stand on something I've basically believed for a while.

Use the text all you want as a reference. You can even say "well, that's not the default rule, and I think the default works better because...". But just saying "that's not RAW" or "RAW says" doesn't buy anything for anyone. It's wasted words. The default rules go well beyond what's written--it includes lots of (mandated in the text) DM involvement that the RAW crowd would never accept as RAW, plus lots of common sense, reading for context, etc. You can have productive discussions about what rules work and whether the text provides good defaults or not without ever invoking the concept behind RAW. And invoking that concept most commonly brings arguments (in the contentious sense), not discussion--heat, not light. Because it's most often used as a form of attack, a forum-acceptable way of telling someone that they're playing it wrong.

[Valmark]

"As far as the game's rules are concerned, it doesn't matter if your world has hundreds of deities or a church devoted to a single god. In rules terms, clerics choose domains, not deities, so your world can associate domains with deities in any way you choose"

Just an example. The game most definitely has written rules and assumes you're following the RAW.

This doesn't mean, as you said, that the RAW is the end all be all. But when you get to play or when you talk about on, say, a forum that is what one assumes as working unless the DM said something else.

If written rules didn't matter at all you'd have to define the whole game when you start your campaign.

For example if I DM Find Steed/Find Greater Steed is homebrewed as a scaling feature because I liked for it to scale but disliked making it a 1st level spell since literally everybody and their mothers could dip for it. Hasn't created any problems at the moment (also hasn't been tested a lot yet, to be fair).

But if somebody asks something about FS/FGS I can't talk about my own version, because that works only with me as a DM. Instead I should stick to the written version A.k.a the RAW.

[Tanarii]

Which is why Rules as Read would be more accurate.
Rairtaancmrimatybdyrahr

Rules as I read them and am now claiming my reading is more accurate than yours by designating your reading a house rule

I need a new color to paint my text when I'm doing that.

Maybe white would be best :smallamused:

[JackPhoenix]

It gives full-text searches of the core books. That's all. I could have done the same thing manually by exhaustively searching the physical books, but the warthog kneels.

Ignoring the rest of the arguments, it has been proven many times that what's on Beyond doesn't always fit with what's in the actual books. Jim's Magic Missile from a recent thread being the most recent example I can think of.


Rairtaancmrimatybdyrahr

Rules as I read them and am now claiming my reading is more accurate than yours by designating your reading a house rule

I need a new color to paint my text when I'm doing that.

Maybe white would be best :smallamused:

I can think of few other users who should follow that suggestion....

[Taevyr]

Use the text all you want as a reference. You can even say "well, that's not the default rule, and I think the default works better because...". But just saying "that's not RAW" or "RAW says" doesn't buy anything for anyone. It's wasted words. The default rules go well beyond what's written--it includes lots of (mandated in the text) DM involvement that the RAW crowd would never accept as RAW, plus lots of common sense, reading for context, etc. You can have productive discussions about what rules work and whether the text provides good defaults or not without ever invoking the concept behind RAW. And invoking that concept most commonly brings arguments (in the contentious sense), not discussion--heat, not light. Because it's most often used as a form of attack, a forum-acceptable way of telling someone that they're playing it wrong.

I put most of my thoughts on RAW/RAI/RAF in an edit to my first post here, but to add on how it's used as a form of attack. I do agree that discussing it in a vacuum is ridiculous. Nothing beyond RAW even exists until you have to apply it to a given situation, and then it'll generally depend on your DM and table, so I never quite saw the point of discussing it that way.

So, on how it's often used as an attack.

In my view, the main problem is that you always have 2 subsets among any large enough group of players:

The first is the minor subset that's either trolling, or love stretching RAW to strengthen their characters: they are few in number, but very annoying and could very well be called "*******s". Discussing these people is usually nothing but a waste of time & energy

The second is the decently-sized subset that is a) very rule-strict, and b) just so happens to read RAW in a very specific way that might differ from how other people would read it. And that doesn't mean that everyone within this group reads RAW the same way: there's plenty of ways to interpret the RAW depending on perspective, mother tongue, and whatever else might influence one's reading

Group 2, by itself, can cause heated discussions, but those are usually in good faith and can even be interesting: everyone just trying to come up with what was meant with a certain rule or sentence. The problem here happens when these people assume their reading is the only correct one, and thus assume their "opponent" has to belong to group 1: Sure, the writers likely meant a certain thing when writing the books, but unless your group has a direct line to Crawford whenever something in the book causes confusion, you probably won't be certain for a while, and thus need a DM to make house rulings, even if he doesn't use a single house rule.

This is worst when 2 people of group 2, each with a different view of RAW, assume each other to be members of group 1. Then, you'll get a neverending discussion with a slowly thinning veneer of civility at best, or a flame war/group breakdown at worst, all because of relatively good intentions.

Ultimately, house ruling's simply the DM's job: you might disagree with him, but unless he's really being a ******* or making rulings that are utterly nonsensical to everyone, you're only wasting everyone's time by starting a long discussion on it mid-game.

As always, the key is proper communication and a good session 0: those are usually the things that keep a good group together and afloat.

EDIT: huh. You got a real strict profanity filter over here.

[Greywander]

Why never!

Seriously, that thread was what pushed me over the edge into taking a stand on something I've basically believed for a while.

Use the text all you want as a reference. You can even say "well, that's not the default rule, and I think the default works better because...". But just saying "that's not RAW" or "RAW says" doesn't buy anything for anyone. It's wasted words. The default rules go well beyond what's written--it includes lots of (mandated in the text) DM involvement that the RAW crowd would never accept as RAW, plus lots of common sense, reading for context, etc. You can have productive discussions about what rules work and whether the text provides good defaults or not without ever invoking the concept behind RAW. And invoking that concept most commonly brings arguments (in the contentious sense), not discussion--heat, not light. Because it's most often used as a form of attack, a forum-acceptable way of telling someone that they're playing it wrong.
I'm not sure which thread you're referring to, but I've certainly seen stuff like this happen before. And yes, I agree with you that someone asserting RAW as if it trumps someone's houserule is annoying and unhelpful. I'm pretty sure I've had it happen to me, too.

But something I've also seen is people insisting that Ability X does Y... when, in fact, it does not. RAW, Ability X does Z, not Y, and yet that person will insist that no, it does Y. It would be one thing if they said something like, "Yes, by RAW Ability X does Z, but we have a houserule that says it does Y instead." But no, I've seen people insisting that their faulty interpretation or even outright made up rule was the One True Way of handling the rule in question. But it isn't. I can read the book and see what it says, and it says Ability X does Z, not Y.

I've also seen people mixing arguments of RAW and houserules. One person will say, "RAW is X," and someone else will respond with, "no, that's wrong, we do Y." Like, I'm sure you do, and that's fine, but that's a houserule. RAW is pretty cut and dry; there are a few ambiguities left, but for the most part (say, 95% of rules) we should all be able to agree on what is RAW. It's totally fine if you want to use a houserule, but don't tell someone that they're wrong when they tell you what the RAW is. It's not wrong, it's just that the houserule is different from the RAW. Either is fine to use. Stating RAW doesn't have to be an attack on someone's houserule, it can be a good way of laying the foundation for a rule on which a discussion about houserules can build off of.

I've even seen people say things like, "that's dumb, when I DM, it will be Z," which acknowledges that they know what RAW says and that they're making a houserule, but they stubbornly continue to argue with people talking about RAW as if their houserule should be enforced at everyone's table. I think this happened recently in a discussion about spell foci and how they don't need to be held so long as you have a free hand (yes, even a wand can simply stay tucked into your belt).

RAW is useful because it's the common ground we all build off of. We shouldn't adhere religiously to RAW, and in fact I've written quite a bit of homebrew and houserules myself. Rule of Cool and DM fiat are also useful tools that allow a DM to selectively ignore the rules and make their own ruling on the fly. But this doesn't mean RAW doesn't have value, or that it doesn't have its place.

Circling back to the topic, you are correct that once play begins there is no distinction between RAW and houserules. There is only a distinction between rules you are using and rules you are not using. But, away from the table and in online discussion forums, there is absolutely a distinction between RAW and houserules. RAW needs to be consistent in order for people playing at different tables to have meaningful discussions about the rules. A discussion about RAW is not the same as a discussion about a houserule and how it interacts with the RAW.

[Asisreo1]

Alot of the time, discussions about certain mechanics are overlooked or plain forgotten when discussing such things.

Typically, when someone discusses something about the way they're playing the game, I tell them what the rules say in case they're unaware, and I usually appreciate when others do the same for me.

We're all human so I don't expect myself to know all the rules as they're written off-hand. I know alot, but surely not all. When I find someone playing outside the rules, my intentions are to make sure that whatever problem they may have isn't because they aren't aware of the rules or because they misunderstand them.

Some people have complained about combat with 10+ enemies because they tend to bog down the game when used individually. However, it might speed up their play alot if they realize that all identical monsters share 1 initiative roll and that their are rules for mob combat. That way, what might possibly be an hour+ combat now takes only 15-20 minutes to run to completion.

Also, it may be that their houserule attempts to fix a problem that doesn't actually exist. For instance, trying to nerf sneak attack merely because its a more "explosive" type of damage even though they mostly align with the damage of other classes.

[ThorOdinson]

The rules on the page are just a reference point. Some tables value sticking to the rules on the page more than others.

In PvP for example the rules on the page are of great significance. A DM that deviates from the rules on the page might give one player advantage over another. Sticking to the rules on the page keeps the PvP or Battle Royale fair and predictable.

Sticking to the rules on the page is also critical to players that want to be able to go from table to table with the same character with some assurance that the rules will be the same or nealy the same for their character. This is one of the objectives of Adventurer's League play.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Alot of the time, discussions about certain mechanics are overlooked or plain forgotten when discussing such things.

Typically, when someone discusses something about the way they're playing the game, I tell them what the rules say in case they're unaware, and I usually appreciate when others do the same for me.

We're all human so I don't expect myself to know all the rules as they're written off-hand. I know alot, but surely not all. When I find someone playing outside the rules, my intentions are to make sure that whatever problem they may have isn't because they aren't aware of the rules or because they misunderstand them.

Some people have complained about combat with 10+ enemies because they tend to bog down the game when used individually. However, it might speed up their play alot if they realize that all identical monsters share 1 initiative roll and that their are rules for mob combat. That way, what might possibly be an hour+ combat now takes only 15-20 minutes to run to completion.

Also, it may be that their houserule attempts to fix a problem that doesn't actually exist. For instance, trying to nerf sneak attack merely because its a more "explosive" type of damage even though they mostly align with the damage of other classes.

I see a big difference between the following responses to someone complaining:

1) That's because you're not following the rules. The rules says you should ...
2) The PHB|DMG|MM have the following suggestion that might help, ...

Even if the two suggestions are the same. One says "you're playing wrong"; the other says "here's something that might help. Have you tried that?"

The RAW mentality is #1, where not following the text is playing wrong. And that kind of response tends to get people's backs up and provoke defensiveness. The second approach is what I'm suggesting. Address the real question asked and provide suggestions that have worked for you. Along with the reasoning behind them.

And FYI, rolling group initiative for identical groups is a suggestion, not a rule. There's nothing wrong with individual initiative. It's a choice you can make that has pros and cons. And even if it was a rule, doing it differently wouldn't, in and of itself, be a problem. The text is a starting point, a set of defaults that (theoretically) should play nicely together and be suitable "out of the box" for a lot of groups. But really, the whole of the text is a rule-generation framework, not a complete rule set designed to be played as written. It specifically says that DMs are supposed to take it as a starting place. That's not the same as a board game, where all the rules are built in and it's designed to be played as written and you modify rules at your own risk. D&D is the reverse--it's a toolbox designed to make certain things easier. But the hammer doesn't insist on being used all the time--such an opinionated hammer would rightfully be discarded.

[Valmark]

I'd also like to add that if you have a lot of monsters all with the same name rolling group initiative is a good way to kill your party.

I was DMing Hoard Of The Dragon Queen and the very first encounter (8 kobolds) required me to fudge half the rolls to not murder the four characters in, like, two rounds.

[JackPhoenix]

And FYI, rolling group initiative for identical groups is a suggestion, not a rule.

It literally is a rule: "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat. When combat starts, every participant makes a Dexterity check to determine their place in the initiative order. The GM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time."

Unless you're saying every rule is just a suggestion, which is true, but at that point, how can you expect to have a meaningful discussion about anything?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

From the DMG Introduction (https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dmg/introduction):

A Dungeon Master gets to wear many hats. As the architect of a campaign, the DM creates adventures by placing monsters, traps, and treasures for the other players’ characters (the adventurers) to discover. As a storyteller, the DM helps the other players visualize what’s happening around them, improvising when the adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected. As an actor, the DM plays the roles of the monsters and supporting characters, breathing life into them. And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.

RAW is irrelevant, the Rules As Interpreted by the DM is all that matters in 5e.

[ProsecutorGodot]

It literally is a rule: "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat. When combat starts, every participant makes a Dexterity check to determine their place in the initiative order. The GM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time."

Unless you're saying every rule is just a suggestion, which is true, but at that point, how can you expect to have a meaningful discussion about anything?

This reminds me of the first time I looked closer at the rules and noticed that the penalty to ranged attacks wasn't dependent on your target, but if any hostile creature was within 5ft.

You can miss a single line in this rulebook and change the flow of things substantially. I was really under the impression that group creature initiative was part of the running the game suggestions in the DM's Guide.

My DM was already doing this for large scale encounters, but I think we both thought it wasn't a default expectation.


I'd also like to add that if you have a lot of monsters all with the same name rolling group initiative is a good way to kill your party.

I was DMing Hoard Of The Dragon Queen and the very first encounter (8 kobolds) required me to fudge half the rolls to not murder the four characters in, like, two rounds.

That campaign has a host of other problems, and I'm not just saying that because my first DND campaign was on the receiving end of a TPK in Greenest :smallannoyed:

[JackPhoenix]

RAW is irrelevant, the Rules As Interpreted by the DM is all that matters in 5e.

Without RAW, you have no R to I.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It literally is a rule: "Initiative determines the order of turns during combat. When combat starts, every participant makes a Dexterity check to determine their place in the initiative order. The GM makes one roll for an entire group of identical creatures, so each member of the group acts at the same time."

Unless you're saying every rule is just a suggestion, which is true, but at that point, how can you expect to have a meaningful discussion about anything?

Hmm. I had remembered that one differently.

But really, every rule is just a suggestion (for the DM at least)--you can't have binding rules where one party is empowered (and even expected!) to deviate from or change those rules at any point in any way. The DM can never break the rules. Doesn't mean he can't screw up and do dumb stuff, but it's never cheating if the DM does it. But that's a separate conversation.


Without RAW, you have no R to I.

Without the text you have no system-provided rules. Doesn't mean there aren't rules--even free-form has rules. And the text and RAW are quite different things--RAW has one interpretation per person, while there's only one[1] text. No text has meaning without interpretation. "RAW" is just one way of interpreting things. And a pretty crappy one at that, discarding anything like context, common sense, normal rules of construction, etc. All in favor of a stilted, hyper-literalistic reading that tortures things. But then I'm biased.

[1] in any given printing.

[JackPhoenix]

Without the text you have no system-provided rules. Doesn't mean there aren't rules--even free-form has rules. And the text and RAW are quite different things--RAW has one interpretation per person, while there's only one[1] text.

Most of the time, there's only one possible interpretation for the text. When the text tells me to roll a d20 to make an attack roll, there's no way anyone can interpret that as rolling a six-sided dice.

RAI only enters the equation when the RAW offers more than one valid interpretation or is otherwise unclear.

[Asisreo1]

I see a big difference between the following responses to someone complaining:

1) That's because you're not following the rules. The rules says you should ...
2) The PHB|DMG|MM have the following suggestion that might help, ...

Even if the two suggestions are the same. One says "you're playing wrong"; the other says "here's something that might help. Have you tried that?"

The RAW mentality is #1, where not following the text is playing wrong. And that kind of response tends to get people's backs up and provoke defensiveness. The second approach is what I'm suggesting. Address the real question asked and provide suggestions that have worked for you. Along with the reasoning behind them.

And FYI, rolling group initiative for identical groups is a suggestion, not a rule. There's nothing wrong with individual initiative. It's a choice you can make that has pros and cons. And even if it was a rule, doing it differently wouldn't, in and of itself, be a problem. The text is a starting point, a set of defaults that (theoretically) should play nicely together and be suitable "out of the box" for a lot of groups. But really, the whole of the text is a rule-generation framework, not a complete rule set designed to be played as written. It specifically says that DMs are supposed to take it as a starting place. That's not the same as a board game, where all the rules are built in and it's designed to be played as written and you modify rules at your own risk. D&D is the reverse--it's a toolbox designed to make certain things easier. But the hammer doesn't insist on being used all the time--such an opinionated hammer would rightfully be discarded.
I agree that rules shouldn't be clung to without any regard for the fun of your table. However, I'm ever vigilant for rules that are there as a necessity rather than just for flavor.

Whether a druid can wear metal armor or not is an understandable adjustment. Even if doing it RAW vs houseruling it can give meaningful combat potential (needing only +2 dex to get 17 AC with metal vs either having 14 AC with +2 or needing +5 to reach 17). I do this often.

But also, I think its important to understand exactly what you're changing and how that affects enjoyment in unforseen ways, because I've fallen into the trap of too many bad houserules that have ended campaigns before, so I'm wary of introducing anything that significantly shifts the balance of things.

Just by merely houseruling away bonus action-cantrip relationships, a spellcaster's power can improve in a tremendous fashion, something they shouldn't really feel the need to worry about.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Most of the time, there's only one possible interpretation for the text. When the text tells me to roll a d20 to make an attack roll, there's no way anyone can interpret that as rolling a six-sided dice.

RAI only enters the equation when the RAW offers more than one valid interpretation or is otherwise unclear.

You'd be surprised, especially when motivated reasoning enters the picture.

The text basically breaks down into two categories.

1. Things that are so clear and obvious that there's nothing to discuss. Generally these are the raw mechanical bits. But since there's nothing to discuss, they just don't come up in rules discussions much and are assumed.

2. Things that people disagree about. And here the text is of little or no help, since (as we see in other threads), there are just about as many "valid readings" as their are people discussing it. And people can find unclarity wherever they look, if they do so hard enough.

RAW only gets deployed in case 2, IMX. Because no one's talking about the others, except to say "page 42" in answer to "where can I find the rules on ..."

I'm distinguishing RAW from the actual text because RAW, as that term is used, isn't just the text. It's a particular way of reading and interpreting the text that draws on 3.5e's optimization zeitgeist and has particular methods and assumptions. For one thing, it assumes away any DM involvement as being the most favorable such involvement to the player. It's basically used as license to go crazy in optimizing. It pretends to be fully textual, but isn't.

[Pex]

You can want that, but you're wanting something 5e has consistently refused to supply. You can want a pitchfork to work as a soup spoon as well, but you'll be disappointed.

I can still hope hypothetical 6E will return to having RAW, but 5E has more RAW than you think.

[KorvinStarmast]

Sticking to the rules on the page is also critical to players that want to be able to go from table to table with the same character with some assurance that the rules will be the same or nealy the same for their character. This is one of the objectives of Adventurer's League play. Though the sight-line end on the target
There cometh, perchance, a miss-fire.

I can still hope hypothetical 6E will return to having RAW, but 5E has more RAW than you think. That would ruin the game. As would a 6th edition. (My opinion, hardly an objective fact)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Though the sight-line end on the target
There cometh, perchance, a miss-fire.


Hah!



That would ruin the game. As would a 6th edition. (My opinion, hardly an objective fact)


But one I heartily agree with.

[Tanarii]

And the text and RAW are quite different things--RAW has one interpretation per person, while there's only one[1] text. No text has meaning without interpretation. "RAW" is just one way of interpreting things.
I disagree. RAW = the text. Nothing more or less.

We all like to add our interpretation and try to call it RAW, but that's not what RAW actually is. RAW is literal quotes of the text.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I disagree. RAW = the text. Nothing more or less.

We all like to add our interpretation and try to call it RAW, but that's not what RAW actually is. RAW is literal quotes of the text.

If that's what it was, the 49 page javelin thread wouldn't be going on. Text without interpretation has no meaning. Quoting passages without anything else doesn't do anything for anyone except answer "what does it say on page 54, line 3." Every RAW thread, every RAW answer involves interpretation. And most often a particular, hackneyed, unnatural interpretation.

[Greywander]

I'm distinguishing RAW from the actual text because RAW, as that term is used, isn't just the text. It's a particular way of reading and interpreting the text that draws on 3.5e's optimization zeitgeist and has particular methods and assumptions. For one thing, it assumes away any DM involvement as being the most favorable such involvement to the player. It's basically used as license to go crazy in optimizing. It pretends to be fully textual, but isn't.
Not necessarily. There's a few cases where the RAW has made me genuinely upset. I can see what the rules say, clear as day, and it's just so utterly stupid that I can't help but wonder if there's been some kind of mistake. This can't be what was actually intended, can it? But nonetheless, it is RAW. I would houserule it any game I play, if possible, but my houserules don't change the RAW.

An example of this is the fact that artificers need to be holding a spell focus (tool or infused item) in order to cast their spells. Even if they don't have an M component. This also doesn't give the spell an M component, so if the spell has an S component but no M component, not only do you need to be holding a spell focus, but your other hand has to be free in order to perform the S component.

I'm not afraid to deviate from the rules if I have an issue with them, but I do think that in order to maintain consistency in online discussions, a more strict reading of the rules is required.

[ThorOdinson]

If that's what it was, the 49 page javelin thread wouldn't be going on. Text without interpretation has no meaning. Quoting passages without anything else doesn't do anything for anyone except answer "what does it say on page 54, line 3." Every RAW thread, every RAW answer involves interpretation. And most often a particular, hackneyed, unnatural interpretation.

{Scrubbed}

[Valmark]

We probably shouldn't talk about the javelin thread when many of the same users are writing here too.


Not necessarily. There's a few cases where the RAW has made me genuinely upset. I can see what the rules say, clear as day, and it's just so utterly stupid that I can't help but wonder if there's been some kind of mistake. This can't be what was actually intended, can it? But nonetheless, it is RAW. I would houserule it any game I play, if possible, but my houserules don't change the RAW.

An example of this is the fact that artificers need to be holding a spell focus (tool or infused item) in order to cast their spells. Even if they don't have an M component. This also doesn't give the spell an M component, so if the spell has an S component but no M component, not only do you need to be holding a spell focus, but your other hand has to be free in order to perform the S component.

I'm not afraid to deviate from the rules if I have an issue with them, but I do think that in order to maintain consistency in online discussions, a more strict reading of the rules is required.

Whoa I never knew that about the artificer. That's... Honestly stupid.

[Greywander]

Whoa I never knew that about the artificer. That's... Honestly stupid.
Tell me about it. It feels like they wanted to mechanically enforce the "spells are gadgets" concept for artificers, but all they did was give artificers crappier spellcasting. The quick fix is to just make them work like any other caster, but I decided to go the other route and wrote up a homebrew version that replaces spellcasting with an expanded spell-storing item system. Haven't had a chance to test it yet, but I'd like to at some point.

I'm hearing that Tasha's Hideous Cauldron will have a tweaked version of the artificer in it. Maybe they'll fix it up there, but I don't expect much in the way of mechanical changes.

[Unoriginal]

Not necessarily. There's a few cases where the RAW has made me genuinely upset. I can see what the rules say, clear as day, and it's just so utterly stupid that I can't help but wonder if there's been some kind of mistake. This can't be what was actually intended, can it? But nonetheless, it is RAW. I would houserule it any game I play, if possible, but my houserules don't change the RAW.

An example of this is the fact that artificers need to be holding a spell focus (tool or infused item) in order to cast their spells. Even if they don't have an M component. This also doesn't give the spell an M component, so if the spell has an S component but no M component, not only do you need to be holding a spell focus, but your other hand has to be free in order to perform the S component.

I'm not afraid to deviate from the rules if I have an issue with them, but I do think that in order to maintain consistency in online discussions, a more strict reading of the rules is required.


Whoa I never knew that about the artificer. That's... Honestly stupid.

There is no indication in the text that the Artificier cannot use the hand they use to hold the tool cannot be used for S component, since they are *required* to hold it to cast spells.

You interpreted the text as "the Artificier rules does not affect the more generic rules about casting and components". If you want to interpret it like that as a DM, it is how it goes. It is your ruling.

But it is nevertheless an interpretation of what is written, and not what is written. It's Rules as Read, like for everyone else.



I'm hearing that Tasha's Hideous Cauldron will have a tweaked version of the artificer in it. Maybe they'll fix it up there, but I don't expect much in the way of mechanical changes.

They changed the Bladesinger, so who knows.

[RifleAvenger]

I'm not afraid to deviate from the rules if I have an issue with them, but I do think that in order to maintain consistency in online discussions, a more strict reading of the rules is required.
Or people could discuss how it's actually going to work at the table in question. I have to agree with Phoenix that too many threads on this forum, looking for advice, get bogged down in trying to claim someone's interpretation of a rule is the 'true' RAW. All while ignoring the purpose of the thread: to find a solution that will work for this player, this GM, this table.

People treat rules interpretation like a competition. Or antagonistic posturing where "I'll show those bad players (or GMs) that how they play the game wouldn't fly at my table! A god am I!" It helps no one and wastes a lot of time all around.

I mean, sure, whiteroom discussions don't have a specific table or player to fall back on, but I find those to be largely devoid of meaningful results. It's not hard to add variables to the scenario.

There's been several times that I've posted threads asking for advice on PCs that the GM has buffed via houserules (usually to get a PC closer to the power level of the table, or to reduce clunkiness). The questions I ask aren't about the houserules, or any 3pp material I'm using; they're usually on spell/feat/feature selection, with the implicit assumption that any 3pp not already in use or mentioned is off-limits. These threads go completely ignored. Now, I'm 95% sure that's just a lack of interest, or poor formatting, or that my efforts to provide comprehensive information on the character come off as a wall of text. Or maybe people just dislike me because of my tone in other threads. But the remaining 5% is paranoid that this forum dismisses the posts because the builds involve 3pp and houserules at all.

[Unoriginal]

I mean, sure, whiteroom discussions don't have a specific table or player to fall back on, but I find those to be largely devoid of meaningful results. It's not hard to add variables to the scenario.

Whiteroom discussions are usually biased for the scenario the person wants to advocate for, anyway.



There's been several times that I've posted threads asking for advice on PCs that the GM has buffed via houserules (usually to get a PC closer to the power level of the table, or to reduce clunkiness). The questions I ask aren't about the houserules, or any 3pp material I'm using; they're usually on spell/feat/feature selection, with the implicit assumption that any 3pp not already in use or mentioned is off-limits. These threads go completely ignored. Now, I'm 95% sure that's just a lack of interest, or poor formatting, or that my efforts to provide comprehensive information on the character come off as a wall of text. Or maybe people just dislike me because of my tone in other threads. But the remaining 5% is paranoid that this forum dismisses the posts because the builds involve 3pp and houserules at all.

Would you mind posting a link to a thread where that happened, please? Just so that I can understand what is being talked about more completely.

[Valmark]

There is no indication in the text that the Artificier cannot use the hand they use to hold the tool cannot be used for S component, since they are *required* to hold it to cast spells.

You interpreted the text as "the Artificier rules does not affect the more generic rules about casting and components". If you want to interpret it like that as a DM, it is how it goes. It is your ruling.

But it is nevertheless an interpretation of what is written, and not what is written. It's Rules as Read, like for everyone else.

They changed the Bladesinger, so who knows.

Fair, but there is nothing saying the Artificer text does affect the general rules which are pretty explicit on the subject.

And you still have a problem with say, Faerie Fire that has a Verbal component only but you still need to have the focus on hand.

[patchyman]

Without RAW, you have no R to I.

I disagree. Without R, you have no R to I, but even among people who take RAW seriously, RAW is different from RAI.

RAW generally means applying the PHB (which is written in natural language) as if it were written as a legal document. Many RAW adherents also ascribe binding or authoritative value to external documents (some even splitting hairs between Sage Advice and Crawford tweets that arenÂ’t in Sage Advice).

By way of example, some RAW adherents claim that because the druidÂ’s prohibition on wearing metal armor does not contain a penalty, there IS no penalty if druids choose to wear metal armor.

[Tanarii]

If that's what it was, the 49 page javelin thread wouldn't be going on. Text without interpretation has no meaning. Quoting passages without anything else doesn't do anything for anyone except answer "what does it say on page 54, line 3." Every RAW thread, every RAW answer involves interpretation. And most often a particular, hackneyed, unnatural interpretation.
What's that got to do with the price of milk?

What you're describing is exactly as I said, people labeling their personal interpretation as if it is the actual fact of the rule as written. Occasionally in the face of every other person telling them they interpret the written rule differently. (I'll freely admit I've been that person. Especially in the old WotC forum RAW wars, which were far more extreme than anything 5e has ever generated.)

I'm sure folks have been arguing about their personal interpretations of the Rules as Written, the RAW, the text itself, since before D&D. You think this didn't happen in war gaming clubs? That's why there was a referee in the first place. :smallamused:

[Red Fel]

Basically, my point is that we should worry less about picking apart the text and more about figuring out what works for your particular table in each circumstance. A DM's ruling, accepted by the table, is the highest and only true rule that exists. So we should work on making those rulings better, whether that means closer to the text[1], further from the text, or disregarding the text entirely.

Yes but.

Yes, ideally, when someone raises a question of how to interpret the rules at that person's table, the best practice would be to help make those ruling best fit that table, in terms of interpretation and application. It's not about uniform fun, it's about what works and is fun for you at your table.

But, RAW is the common denominator. The shared starting point. It's the source to which we all have access. We don't know what rules you use or don't use at your table, we don't know what kind of pizza you order, we don't know why your friend Steve insists on playing CHA-based classes when he has none whatsoever. We don't have that information and, respectfully, I sincerely doubt that anyone posting to this or any forum to request an individualized ruling can list out every single variable that might impact a response.

That's why RAW is part of the debate. Not because it is a divine truth granted to base peasants from on high, to which we must adhere zealously lest we incur the wrath of the Natural 1, but because it's the only part we all know we have in common.

Yes, a DM's ruling at the table is the rule. But we don't know your DM and all of his or her myriad rulings. We only know what we can control-f.


That's just it. Cookbooks do (at least the good ones) have text about when to follow and when not to follow them.

No. Good cookbooks expect you to follow the recipe. When you're ready to improvise, you no longer need the cookbook.

Some cookbooks offer you an alternative. "Instead of X, consider substituting Y." Some do that. But that's not required.

Say I don't eat butter. For whatever reason. And I substitute margarine. If I say, "Hey, I need help with Cookbook X, Recipe Y," and people start talking about the use of butter, and only then do I say, "Well, I don't use butter." Is that a flaw of the cookbook? No. I am choosing to deviate from the rules as written - rules that form the constant and common denominator of our discourse. Until and unless I share my butter rejection, everyone will assume I'm trying to follow the recipe as written, because that's how you make the dish correctly.

Also, I'm sorry, but margarine simply isn't a substitute for butter. It is not, and that is a hill I'm prepared to die on. Come at me.


I'm distinguishing RAW from the actual text because RAW, as that term is used, isn't just the text. It's a particular way of reading and interpreting the text that draws on 3.5e's optimization zeitgeist and has particular methods and assumptions. For one thing, it assumes away any DM involvement as being the most favorable such involvement to the player. It's basically used as license to go crazy in optimizing. It pretends to be fully textual, but isn't.

This, I think, is part of the problem. When you interpret the RAW - your scenario 2 - you are no longer looking at RAW. You are, by definition, looking at RAI.

To continue your cookbook metaphor, RAW would be "two teaspoons of salt." RAI would be "two sprinkles of black pepper." A teaspoon is a fixed value. But a sprinkle? That's open to interpretation. You cannot read that rule - two sprinkles - on its face and have a clear answer.

That's your scenario 2. When people genuinely disagree on how to read a rule - when there exists genuine ambiguity - you use RAI to resolve it. Where the rule says "two teaspoons of salt," you can use the RAW without problem. If someone says "two teaspoons of salt is too salty," that's not a matter of interpretation - it's a matter of opinion. That person is saying, "I disagree with this rule and wish to use a house rule." And that's fine. But that's not interpretation.

Thus, yes, RAW is the actual text. If you can read the text and it clearly states something, that is RAW. Where you interpret it, that isn't just the text, and it is by definition RAI.

I think that your core assumption - that any text must be interpreted, and that the interpretation, rather than the text, is RAW - is flawed for this reason.

[Unoriginal]

Just saying, but when used on this forum RAI nearly always stands for Rules as Intended, not Rules as Interpreted.

It's usually used in another type of argument where the intent of the rule's writer is discussed and judged as informative on how the rule should be interpreted.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Just saying, but when used on this forum RAI nearly always stands for Rules as Intended, not Rules as Interpreted.

It's usually used in another type of argument where the intent of the rule's writer is discussed and judged as informative on how the rule should be interpreted.

Yeah. Because trying to separate reading and interpretation is a fool's errand.

IMO, the obfuscation by going with "interpreted" is intentional--trying to smuggle in a favored interpretation under the term RAW. Because there is no meaning without interpretation. Text, standing alone, doesn't mean anything. Only when a human brain reads it and applies meaning to those words does it have any operative sense. And that application of meaning is interpretation.

Often there is only one sensible interpretation, but that does not mean that that's not an interpretation. And that fact (that some rule text has one clear meaning) is used as cover for the fact that all the interesting (for conversational purposes) text has multiple meanings. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing those meanings.

And RAW, as it's used on these forums and elsewhere, is never just the plain language reading. It's always a particular breed of thing with particular rules (including such gems as "words can only ever have one meaning" and "every word must have independent effect, even if you have to chop sentences apart") that hearken more to prooftexting than to actual exegesis. I've spent a good share of time around the masters of this style of interpretation (in a different context), so I'm well aware of the tricks. And they're just as (not) convincing here as they are there. They pretend to be the "literal meaning", when it's really one style of reading that is designed to allow the reader to extract their pre-conceived conclusions out. In this case, it's a reading designed to allow maximum power and minimum DM involvement, no matter how much violence that does to the text.

[KorvinStarmast]

We probably shouldn't talk about the javelin thread when many of the same users are writing here too. Aye.

Whoa I never knew that about the artificer. That's... Honestly stupid. One of many things about the artificer that makes me grind my teeth.

Tell me about it. It feels like they wanted to mechanically enforce the "spells are gadgets" concept for artificers, but all they did was give artificers crappier spellcasting. Our artificer mostly works with it and it ends up being effective.

There is no indication in the text that the Artificier cannot use the hand they use to hold the tool cannot be used for S component, since they are *required* to hold it to cast spells. {snip} They changed the Bladesinger, so who knows. And I saw no point in changing the bladesinger in the first place. Why are they messing with what wasn't broken? *shakes head*

I have to agree with Phoenix that too many threads on this forum, looking for advice, get bogged down in trying to claim someone's interpretation of a rule is the 'true' RAW. All while ignoring the purpose of the thread: to find a solution that will work for this player, this GM, this table.

There's been several times that I've posted threads asking for advice on PCs that the GM has buffed via houserules (usually to get a PC closer to the power level of the table, or to reduce clunkiness). The questions I ask aren't about the houserules, or any 3pp material I'm using; they're usually on spell/feat/feature selection, with the implicit assumption that any 3pp not already in use or mentioned is off-limits.
These threads go completely ignored.
Now, I'm 95% sure that's just a lack of interest, or poor formatting, or that my efforts to provide comprehensive information on the character come off as a wall of text. Or maybe people just dislike me because of my tone in other threads. But the remaining 5% is paranoid that this forum dismisses the posts because the builds involve 3pp and houserules at all.

Whiteroom discussions are usually biased for the scenario the person wants to advocate for, anyway. Yep.

By way of example, some RAW adherents claim that because the druid's prohibition on wearing metal armor does not contain a penalty, there IS no penalty if druids choose to wear metal armor. *backs away, slowly*

I'm sure folks have been arguing about their personal interpretations of the Rules as Written, the RAW, the text itself, since before D&D. You think this didn't happen in war gaming clubs? That's why there was a referee in the first place. :smallamused: Yep. We had a micro armor game back in college days that needed a ref, had a ref, and then one of the players tried to get all up in the ref's grill during play. Yeah, referees are human too. :smallsmile:
Caddyshack reference follows
Keep it fair
I couldn't ...

Yes but.

Yes, ideally, when someone raises a question of how to interpret the rules at that person's table, the best practice would be to help make those ruling best fit that table, in terms of interpretation and application. It's not about uniform fun, it's about what works and is fun for you at your table.

But, RAW is the common denominator. The shared starting point. Bingo.

Also, I'm sorry, but margarine simply isn't a substitute for butter. It is not, and that is a hill I'm prepared to die on. Come at me. I am on board with this PoV.

Just saying, but when used on this forum RAI nearly always stands for Rules as Intended, not Rules as Interpreted. It's usually used in another type of argument where the intent of the rule's writer is discussed and judged as informative on how the rule should be interpreted. I almost never see RAI as the 'interpreted' - usage wise, a secondary usage.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I almost never see RAI as the 'interpreted' - usage wise, a secondary usage.

And the only authoritative source for the term RAI (and RAW) in this edition (Sage Advice Compendium) uses "intended" for RAI.

[KorvinStarmast]

And the only authoritative source for the term RAI (and RAW) in this edition (Sage Advice Compendium) uses "intended" for RAI.
Does that make the SAC into RAW: Rulings as Written? :smallbiggrin:Or are they RAT: Rulings as Typed?

*ducks*

[PhoenixPhyre]

Does that make the SAC into RAW: Rulings as Written? :smallbiggrin:Or are they RAT: Rulings as Typed?

*ducks*

Ducks aren't rodents! I'd say that SAC is RAF--there's certainly something fishy about them.

[KorvinStarmast]

Ducks aren't rodents! I'd say that SAC is RAF--there's certainly something fishy about them. Which leads me to wonder whether or not geas are migratory fowl ... (I know some people who pronounce it that way)

[PhoenixPhyre]

Which leads me to wonder whether or not geas are migratory fowl ... (I know some people who pronounce it that way)

I've always (probably incorrectly) pronounced that spell as if it's geese...said by Sean Connery (RIP). Geesh. Or something like that.

[Democratus]

Yeah. Because trying to separate reading and interpretation is a fool's errand.

IMO, the obfuscation by going with "interpreted" is intentional--trying to smuggle in a favored interpretation under the term RAW. Because there is no meaning without interpretation. Text, standing alone, doesn't mean anything. Only when a human brain reads it and applies meaning to those words does it have any operative sense. And that application of meaning is interpretation.

Yep. This is the root of the problem with these discussions.

Rules have no meaning at all until they are interpreted by a reader.

[Unoriginal]

Yep. This is the root of the problem with these discussions.

Rules have no meaning at all until they are interpreted by a reader.

"Non Lex Sine Lector" is a nice phrase, I think.

[Edea]

I think geas is pronounced a lot like 'gish', except the vowel sound descends a bit, as if you were trying to put an accent on it. 'Gehsh', I guess.

It is NOT pronounced 'gay ass' or 'geese,' I know that much.

[Taevyr]

Which leads me to wonder whether or not geas are migratory fowl ... (I know some people who pronounce it that way)

They've always been avians, but they only became migratory after some wizard enforced it on the entire species through a geese spell. Apparently he suffered from allergies.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think geas is pronounced a lot like 'gish', except the vowel sound descends a bit, as if you were trying to put an accent on it. 'Gehsh', I guess.

It is NOT pronounced 'gay ass' or 'geese,' I know that much.
Not gish, I don't think. (http://languagehat.com/geas/)

gay-ahz or gay ahs seem to be closer to the original word that it came from (but see below). I use ah there because the short a in English, like in at, is different from the a in a lot of other languages where it tends to sound more like ah

There is no "sh" sound at the end as far as I recall, but, I think we may have started saying it back in the mid 1970's by using Latinesque assumptions, whereas it is originally from a Celtic/Gaelic word.

But, there seems to have been some change over the years, here's some useful info. (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/171316/22566)

[Willie the Duck]

Ducks aren't rodents! I'd say that SAC is RAF--there's certainly something fishy about them.
Well of course not (we're dragons (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ComicStrip/SnarfQuest) (but I'm not supposed to know that). :-P


I'm distinguishing RAW from the actual text because RAW, as that term is used, isn't just the text. It's a particular way of reading and interpreting the text that draws on 3.5e's optimization zeitgeist and has particular methods and assumptions. For one thing, it assumes away any DM involvement as being the most favorable such involvement to the player. It's basically used as license to go crazy in optimizing. It pretends to be fully textual, but isn't.

Or people could discuss how it's actually going to work at the table in question. I have to agree with Phoenix that too many threads on this forum, looking for advice, get bogged down in trying to claim someone's interpretation of a rule is the 'true' RAW. All while ignoring the purpose of the thread: to find a solution that will work for this player, this GM, this table.
People treat rules interpretation like a competition. Or antagonistic posturing

I think that this is my issue with the thread premise. There seems to be multiple things being conflated -- 1) the term RAW, 2) RAW as an ideal/'RAW's place in the online-discussing-gamerdom's cultural zeitgeist, and 3) people using declarations of RAW-dom as a way to win (or 'win') arguments.

People use the acronym to mean Rules As Written and IMO there's no real value in declaring them wrong on that. It means the rules printed out*, full stop. *In general, literal errata being included, as few of us are wedded to the physically printed books these days. But that isn't inherently true.
Then there is what I call 'the cult of RAW,' which is the online mentality that RAW is some really important thing. This certainly didn't start with online forum behavior during the 3e heyday, but certainly received a major signal boost at that time (along with the term 'RAW' gaining prevalence). I generally agree with the notion that this was in the end unhelpful and I get how it inspired the designers to go with a more natural language zeitgeist for 5e.
Finally there is RAW as a rhetorical bludgeon. I will admit that this is incredibly frustrating to myself as well. However, it certainly isn't unique. Online discussions are like that. For every person trying to have an honest discussion or learn something new (/get some actual gaming advice), there is another person trying to 'win' the discussion. Think about the term 'strawman', or any of the latin-named fallacies -- when you see those in online discussions, do they not instill the same anticipatory muscle-clench that seeing the term 'RAW' does? This is what forums (or really anywhere with comments sections, I've seen 50 page arguments at the bottom of news articles on homemade petfood recipes) seem to do.



Whether a druid can wear metal armor or not is an understandable adjustment. Even if doing it RAW vs houseruling it can give meaningful combat potential (needing only +2 dex to get 17 AC with metal vs either having 14 AC with +2 or needing +5 to reach 17). I do this often.
For that matter, noticing that nothing in the Studded Leather description (despite previous incarnations either being ahistoric metal-studded leather, or actual brigandine) mentioning metal is a case where paying attention to the written rules nets you a 17 AC with that 20 Dex instead of 16.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think that this is my issue with the thread premise. There seems to be multiple things being conflated -- 1) the term RAW, 2) RAW as an ideal/'RAW's place in the online-discussing-gamerdom's cultural zeitgeist, and 3) people using declarations of RAW-dom as a way to win (or 'win') arguments.

People use the acronym to mean Rules As Written and IMO there's no real value in declaring them wrong on that. It means the rules printed out*, full stop. *In general, literal errata being included, as few of us are wedded to the physically printed books these days. But that isn't inherently true.
Then there is what I call 'the cult of RAW,' which is the online mentality that RAW is some really important thing. This certainly didn't start with online forum behavior during the 3e heyday, but certainly received a major signal boost at that time (along with the term 'RAW' gaining prevalence). I generally agree with the notion that this was in the end unhelpful and I get how it inspired the designers to go with a more natural language zeitgeist for 5e.
Finally there is RAW as a rhetorical bludgeon. I will admit that this is incredibly frustrating to myself as well. However, it certainly isn't unique. Online discussions are like that. For every person trying to have an honest discussion or learn something new (/get some actual gaming advice), there is another person trying to 'win' the discussion. Think about the term 'strawman', or any of the latin-named fallacies -- when you see those in online discussions, do they not instill the same anticipatory muscle-clench that seeing the term 'RAW' does? This is what forums (or really anywhere with comments sections, I've seen 50 page arguments at the bottom of news articles on homemade petfood recipes) seem to do.



My primary issue is that it's a motte-bailey argument. People use sense #2 & #3, but then when questioned about it, retreat to #1 and claim that that's what they were doing all along. #1 basically never really comes up, because it's pretty useless by itself (no meaning without interpretation).

What I want people to realize is that there is nothing special about claiming that something is (or isn't) RAW. That adds absolutely no information to a discussion. You can certainly make text-oriented arguments (contrasting textual elements, for instance). But you can't claim that your interpretation is somehow special because it's "RAW". Because that's an unjustified assumption. And all that anyone is every discussing in these arguments is interpretation. The only thing you can say about the text itself is "that is not a correct quote" (ie that got errata'd and the text itself is different). All the interesting parts are in the interpretation of that text.

So basically, I want the term RAW retired from use because it's poisoned beyond redemption. Just make your arguments, using the text if you wish. Don't gatekeep based on some nebulous, non-specific "RAW interpretation" thing.

[KorvinStarmast]

So basically, I want the term RAW retired from use because it's poisoned beyond redemption. Just make your arguments, using the text if you wish. Don't gatekeep based on some nebulous, non-specific "RAW interpretation" thing. While I feel similarly, good luck with that. :smallcool:

[Pex]

If that's what it was, the 49 page javelin thread wouldn't be going on. Text without interpretation has no meaning. Quoting passages without anything else doesn't do anything for anyone except answer "what does it say on page 54, line 3." Every RAW thread, every RAW answer involves interpretation. And most often a particular, hackneyed, unnatural interpretation.

RAW exists. One may not like what it says or doesn't say, but it's there. One is perfectly capable of saying "I know what RAW says/doesn't say. I don't like what RAW says/doesn't say. I won't use what RAW says/will keep criticizing RAW doesn't say this" and not be guilty of anything.

[PhoenixPhyre]

While I feel similarly, good luck with that. :smallcool:

Call me Don Quixote.


RAW exists. One may not like what it says or doesn't say, but it's there. One is perfectly capable of saying "I know what RAW says/doesn't say. I don't like what RAW says/doesn't say. I won't use what RAW says/will keep criticizing RAW doesn't say this" and not be guilty of anything.

No one has convinced me yet (or even provided evidence) that there is a unique thing called RAW that has any meaning in these conversations. People have asserted its existence, but never have defined its parameters beyond the useless "just the text" term. You can't claim to not be interpreting text...while interpreting text. The raw text itself answers no questions and makes no claims--only people, using that text, answer questions and make claims. And that inherently goes beyond the text itself and is thus not covered by the "just the text" term.

[Unoriginal]

Call me Don Quixote.

I'd rather not. Don Quixote was attacking imaginary problems and hurting innocents in the process because his delusions made him believe he was in a whole different context than the real world.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd rather not. Don Quixote was attacking imaginary problems and hurting innocents in the process because his delusions made him believe he was in a whole different context than the real world.

Correction accepted.

[MaxWilson]

No one has convinced me yet (or even provided evidence) that there is a unique thing called RAW that has any meaning in these conversations. People have asserted its existence, but never have defined its parameters beyond the useless "just the text" term. You can't claim to not be interpreting text...while interpreting text. The raw text itself answers no questions and makes no claims--only people, using that text, answer questions and make claims. And that inherently goes beyond the text itself and is thus not covered by the "just the text" term.

So, have you convinced anyone else, or has this whole thread been a waste of time?

[Tanarii]

Yep. This is the root of the problem with these discussions.

Rules have no meaning at all until they are interpreted by a reader.
Nope. Failing to understand they are seperate is the problem. Folks are confusing the written text (RAW) and the fact they've run that written text through a personal interpretation.

[Valmark]

Call me Don Quixote.

No one has convinced me yet (or even provided evidence) that there is a unique thing called RAW that has any meaning in these conversations. People have asserted its existence, but never have defined its parameters beyond the useless "just the text" term. You can't claim to not be interpreting text...while interpreting text. The raw text itself answers no questions and makes no claims--only people, using that text, answer questions and make claims. And that inherently goes beyond the text itself and is thus not covered by the "just the text" term.

I mean, if you refuse to consider the text as RAW it's obvious nobody will convince you. You can't convince somebody that rejects the definition.

If it's of any help there is a definition of RAW in the SAC- it's the same thing that has been said here, but maybe reading it in a semi-official document can be somewhat useful.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, if you refuse to consider the text as RAW it's obvious nobody will convince you. You can't convince somebody that rejects the definition.

If it's of any help there is a definition of RAW in the SAC- it's the same thing that has been said here, but maybe reading it in a semi-official document can be somewhat useful.

My issue is that "text as RAW" is both tautologically obvious and not useful. And not how that term is actually used in real discussions. Basically, it's an obfuscation, a convenient shield to smuggle in personal interpretation as some sort of official standard. "RAW as a particular interpretation method" is how it's actually used. But then that's hidden behind the text. Which doesn't claim any special power.

If "text as RAW" was how people were actually using that term, then it wouldn't get used much if at all. Because it doesn't do anything for anyone until and unless interpreted. The only thing you can do with the bare text is ask "where are <words> found?" type questions. And those just aren't meaningful questions the vast majority of the time.

Instead, RAW has become an entirely separate entity, a higher form of rules than "houserules", with a whole separate culture and interpretation methodology (which no one really agrees on beyond the very most obvious cases, but...). And that distinction is not RAW (in the textual sense)--there's no text evidence supporting the distinction of "text rules" vs "non-text rules". They're all rules of equal standing.

Overall, I find the statement "That's not RAW" to be isomorphic to "I don't like that" or "I don't agree with that", except with the added benefit of appeal to fictitious authority.

[KorvinStarmast]

I mean, if you refuse to consider the text as RAW it's obvious nobody will convince you. You can't convince somebody that rejects the definition.

If it's of any help there is a definition of RAW in the SAC- it's the same thing that has been said here, but maybe reading it in a semi-official document can be somewhat useful. The RAW problem lies, in part, in people treating it like computer code, rather than what is written in English (and English is a high context language). Hence the need for interpretation, which is amplified and magnified by the problem of plenty of non native speakers doing their best when even native speakers find any number of passages or phrases either ambiguous, internally contradictory, or just confusing.

Since it wasn't written with "this is code" as an authorial assumption, reading it that way is a faulty approach to what is there. The RAW au outrance faction falls into that trap again and again.

Mind you, rules lawyers have been with us in this game as far back as I can remember. Dave Arneson even had a pithy quote somewhere form an interview where he explicitly refers to rules lawyers as "the enemy."

I have some experience with another game where rules arguments and rulings can get anywhere form heated to insane: the game of golf. (Two infamous examples being - rulings against Craig Stadler and Paul Azinger). The R&A and the USGA publish rulings as a supplement to the actual "rules of golf" with some frequency. Anyone who plays competitively must be familiar with that, but even then, in a given tournament, The Committee plays the part of DM in a D&D game: that of referee. All I can say is that I see a striking similarity in the two games ... I no longer play golf competitively.

[MaxWilson]

My issue is that "text as RAW" is both tautologically obvious and not useful. And not how that term is actually used in real discussions. Basically, it's an obfuscation, a convenient shield to smuggle in personal interpretation as some sort of official standard. "RAW as a particular interpretation method" is how it's actually used. But then that's hidden behind the text. Which doesn't claim any special power.

If "text as RAW" was how people were actually using that term, then it wouldn't get used much if at all. Because it doesn't do anything for anyone until and unless interpreted. The only thing you can do with the bare text is ask "where are <words> found?" type questions. And those just aren't meaningful questions the vast majority of the time.

That's just not true. Among other things, it's a baseline for discussing rule variants, e.g. from a recent discussion on whether it's good for wizards to get 2 spells automatically added to their spellbook when they level up:


I'm with Kireban on this one. I do have rules for and encourage spell research, and I also live with the "2 bonus spells per level" thing because it's RAW***, but those spells-out-of-nowhere are intensely annoying and I wish they weren't in RAW. I like the AD&D way where spells have to be researched or found as treasure, and where finding a powerful spell like Simulacrum or Wish is as exciting as finding a powerful magic item like a Vorpal Sword.

*** I try to minimize changes to RAW for the sake of the player experience, and my annoyance here doesn't quite rise to the level where I've houseruled it away. If all the players were as annoyed as me I'd get rid of those "free" spells in a heartbeat though.

Hopefully you can at least acknowledge that referring to the "2 bonus spells/level" thing absolutely is a reference to the rules text, not some spurious interpretation. No serious person would ever dispute that the PHB says wizards get exactly that. You claimed that using the term "RAW" to refer to this kind of thing was "not useful" and "not how that term is actually used in real discussions", but it is useful and it does happen in real discussions.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's just not true. Among other things, it's a baseline for discussing rule variants, e.g. from a recent discussion on whether it's good for wizards to get 2 spells automatically added to their spellbook when they level up:



Hopefully you can at least acknowledge that referring to the "2 bonus spells/level" thing absolutely is a reference to the rules text, not some spurious interpretation. No serious person would ever dispute that the PHB says wizards get exactly that. You claimed that using the term "RAW" to refer to this kind of thing was "not useful" and "not how that term is actually used in real discussions", but it is useful and it does happen in real discussions.

In that quote, the term RAW adds minimal value. And invokes a sense of "you're doing it wrong otherwise" that's unwarranted and conversation-damaging.

Not changing it because players expect that rule to be there is an actual (and valid) reason here. Not changing it because "it's RAW and RAW is special" is not warranted by the text. But that goes well beyond just the text itself--the only sane reading of the text is that the text claims no authority for itself (against DMs, anyway). "Pure" RAW would have to stop at "yes, there is a phrase that says that wizards add two spells to their spellbook when they level up, but RAW also says that the DM is the final authority on all rules questions." Pure RAW can't tell you anything about whether something is a good, bad, or indifferent idea.

Basically, pure RAW runs into the is/ought problem. Pure RAW can tell you is (for one very narrow class of issues). But the vast majority of the time we're worrying about ought, where RAW doesn't tell you anything, and any attempt to invoke RAW is an outside, non-RAW imposition. My claim is that all the questions that actually need discussion are of the "ought" type, not the "is" type.

So yes. Pure RAW isn't completely valueless. But it's value is, in my eyes, minimal.

[Valmark]

In that quote, the term RAW adds minimal value. And invokes a sense of "you're doing it wrong otherwise" that's unwarranted and conversation-damaging.

Not changing it because players expect that rule to be there is an actual (and valid) reason here. Not changing it because "it's RAW and RAW is special" is not warranted by the text. But that goes well beyond just the text itself--the only sane reading of the text is that the text claims no authority for itself (against DMs, anyway). "Pure" RAW would have to stop at "yes, there is a phrase that says that wizards add two spells to their spellbook when they level up, but RAW also says that the DM is the final authority on all rules questions." Pure RAW can't tell you anything about whether something is a good, bad, or indifferent idea.

Basically, pure RAW runs into the is/ought problem. Pure RAW can tell you is (for one very narrow class of issues). But the vast majority of the time we're worrying about ought, where RAW doesn't tell you anything, and any attempt to invoke RAW is an outside, non-RAW imposition. My claim is that all the questions that actually need discussion are of the "ought" type, not the "is" type.

So yes. Pure RAW isn't completely valueless. But it's value is, in my eyes, minimal.

So, basically your problem is with the people using "RAW" in a bad way? If that didn't happen you'd have no issue?

[Unoriginal]

That's just not true. Among other things, it's a baseline for discussing rule variants, e.g. from a recent discussion on whether it's good for wizards to get 2 spells automatically added to their spellbook when they level up:



Hopefully you can at least acknowledge that referring to the "2 bonus spells/level" thing absolutely is a reference to the rules text, not some spurious interpretation. No serious person would ever dispute that the PHB says wizards get exactly that. You claimed that using the term "RAW" to refer to this kind of thing was "not useful" and "not how that term is actually used in real discussions", but it is useful and it does happen in real discussions.

I think the question is more: why use the term "RAW" rather thansimply "the text" or "the rules"?

Let's examine it further. Is "Rules as Written" different from "the rules"?

If it isn't different, then the "as Written" part is superfluous.

If it is different, then someone who uses the term "RAW isn't talking about something they feel the need to distinguish from the rules of 5e in general.


And to go even further: if someone says that "X is not RAW", is it the same as saying "X is not the rules"?

[Willie the Duck]

PhoenixPhyre, do you think it would help this problem you see existing if people had to instead say something like, "the rules, as I understand them to be, are this... <explanation> (as evidenced by this block of rules text: <quote>)," rather than having this concise term 'RAW?'

I mean, I get that your issue is at least partially people using this term RAW as a way to declare their interpretation to be officially supported (regardless of any truth to that matter), but I'm really not sure that it is the term RAW that does this.

Edit: effectively ninja'd.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So, basically your problem is with the people using "RAW" in a bad way? If that didn't happen you'd have no issue?

If all anyone ever meant was "the pure text", in context of a quote from the source and then noted that the interpretation was their own (and not something mandated by the text itself), I'd shrug and go on without issue. I'd find it pointless verbiage, but I'm guilty of that myself so I can't really complain.

So saying

RAW says that <insert quote from PHB>. I read that as meaning that <interpretation> because <reasoning>.

is, for me, not an issue. What is an issue (for me) is


RAW says that <interpretation>.

or


Your argument isn't RAW.

or


I don't do houserules--I play according to RAW only.[1]

[1] especially if the tone is sneering. But even without that tone, they're making a distinction that doesn't exist in practice. Because the bare text isn't a workable set of rules without significant interpretation and yes, DM decisions (ie "houserules").

I want people to treat all rules as rules and not try to use the text as a bludgeon to hit people who disagree or tell them that they're wrong. I want the text to play the role it's designed for, which is not as a weapon or a shield. Or as fuel for rules lawyering.

Edit @ WillietheDuck: Yes. I want people to make actual arguments, using the text as one piece of persuasive evidence for their position. Not make conclusory statements that claim the mantle of textual authority simply by invoking the text and some nebulous "RAW" term.

[Unoriginal]

PhoenixPhyre, do you think it would help this problem you see existing if people had to instead say something like, "the rules, as I understand them to be, are this... <explanation> (as evidenced by this block of rules text: <quote>)," rather than having this concise term 'RAW?'

I mean, I get that your issue is at least partially people using this term RAW as a way to declare their interpretation to be officially supported (regardless of any truth to that matter), but I'm really not sure that it is the term RAW that does this.

Edit: effectively ninja'd.

Thing is, "RAW" does not implies "the rules, as I understand them to be", but "the rules, as they are".

Which is either redundant or a transparent rhetoric trick to pretend what the person is saying is the Objective, Neutral Reading of the text.

[Willie the Duck]

Thing is, "RAW" does not implies "the rules, as I understand them to be", but "the rules, as they are".

Which is either redundant or a transparent rhetoric trick to pretend what the person is saying is the Objective, Neutral Reading of the text.

Yes, I get that. I am working under the premise that OP wants people to say what they think the rules say, and then back it up with actual argument, and that it is having the ability to affix this little three letter tag to what they say that is the issue.

Edit: It looks like you, I, and PhoenixPhyre are circling around the same point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, I get that. I am working under the premise that OP wants people to say what they think the rules say, and then back it up with actual argument, and that it is having the ability to affix this little three letter tag to what they say that is the issue.

Edit: It looks like you, I, and PhoenixPhyre are circling around the same point.

Yes. I agree.

My issue with the tag itself is that labels are powerful shortcuts. By tagging your interpretation as RAW, you're importing all the (mistaken, IMO) authority that goes along with it in people's heads. You're not just claiming that it's your belief, but that it's fact and that anyone who disagrees with you is disagreeing with the rules (rather than with some person's opinion about the rules). And doing so frequently causes defensive behavior, because it's a conversational grenade. Just like saying that someone's rules are just houserules is (frequently) a snub--they're not real rules, just those things you made up on your own. It's a barrier to conversation, not a conversation help. It lets you avoid the whole giving actual argument about why your interpretation is a good one[1] and having evidence to back that up. It's a conclusory statement, not an argument. The latin term for it is ipse dixit--"because I said so".

[Valmark]

I think the question is more: why use the term "RAW" rather thansimply "the text" or "the rules"?

Let's examine it further. Is "Rules as Written" different from "the rules"?

If it isn't different, then the "as Written" part is superfluous.

If it is different, then someone who uses the term "RAW isn't talking about something they feel the need to distinguish from the rules of 5e in general.


And to go even further: if someone says that "X is not RAW", is it the same as saying "X is not the rules"?
Yes and no. If I say, for example, "the rule is that sneak attack only works on the surprise round" because I house ruled it you have no clue wether I'm quoting the book wrongly or wether I decided that at my table it works like that. RAW helps making that distinction.

A rule can be both the text's or my own, RAW is just a way to point out it's the text's. If I said written rules it'd be the same as RAW though and the latter takes less to type, even if you use the bloc maiusc. Or whatever you call it when you type all capital letters.

If all anyone ever meant was "the pure text", in context of a quote from the source and then noted that the interpretation was their own (and not something mandated by the text itself), I'd shrug and go on without issue. I'd find it pointless verbiage, but I'm guilty of that myself so I can't really complain.

So saying


is, for me, not an issue. What is an issue (for me) is



or



or



[1] especially if the tone is sneering. But even without that tone, they're making a distinction that doesn't exist in practice. Because the bare text isn't a workable set of rules without significant interpretation and yes, DM decisions (ie "houserules").

I want people to treat all rules as rules and not try to use the text as a bludgeon to hit people who disagree or tell them that they're wrong. I want the text to play the role it's designed for, which is not as a weapon or a shield. Or as fuel for rules lawyering.

Edit @ WillietheDuck: Yes. I want people to make actual arguments, using the text as one piece of persuasive evidence for their position. Not make conclusory statements that claim the mantle of textual authority simply by invoking the text and some nebulous "RAW" term.

I see, I understand. I don't think many got what you meant from the thread, which doesn't even mention the real issue in the first post or the title (or at least I didn't get it) but rather a different and possibly unrelated issue.

[MaxWilson]

In that quote, the term RAW adds minimal value. And invokes a sense of "you're doing it wrong otherwise" that's unwarranted and conversation-damaging.

Special pleading (ignoring evidence that doesn't fit your narrative) has been noted. You said the term doesn't get used in a non-interpretative, purely textual sense, and now that it is you're trying to change the subject and say it shouldn't have been used that way, only in the way that you find offensive.

If you look at the actual words written no such implication is warranted, and "rules as written" is an appropriate label.


I'm with Kireban on this one. I do have rules for and encourage spell research, and I also live with the "2 bonus spells per level" thing because it's $name***, but those spells-out-of-nowhere are intensely annoying and I wish they weren't in $name. I like the AD&D way where spells have to be researched or found as treasure, and where finding a powerful spell like Simulacrum or Wish is as exciting as finding a powerful magic item like a Vorpal Sword.

*** I try to minimize changes to $name for the sake of the player experience, and my annoyance here doesn't quite rise to the level where I've houseruled it away. If all the players were as annoyed as me I'd get rid of those "free" spells in a heartbeat though.


There's no replacement $name which communicates the point more clearly than "rules as written"/"RAW". I explain exactly why the rules as written are relevant, and there's no implication that changing the rules is "doing is wrong" because I also explain under what circumstances I would do exactly that.

Your whole argument is circular.

[Pex]

If someone says "But it's not RAW", you can respond it is and have a lively discussion why that goes on for pages if you're into that sort of thing. Alternative, you can respond "I know but I don't care because I don't like the RAW of this topic for reasons". The "But it's not RAW" person does not have any moral superiority against you in either situation.

[PhoenixPhyre]

If someone says "But it's not RAW", you can respond it is and have a lively discussion why that goes on for pages if you're into that sort of thing. Alternative, you can respond "I know but I don't care because I don't like the RAW of this topic for reasons". The "But it's not RAW" person does not have any moral superiority against you in either situation.

But the status of "RAW" or "not RAW" doesn't mean anything useful! It's a red herring. Because you're not talking about the text itself at that point--any such question can be settled quickly by a CTRL-F search. You're talking about interpretations, which are inherently subjective.

[Segev]

But the status of "RAW" or "not RAW" doesn't mean anything useful! It's a red herring. Because you're not talking about the text itself at that point--any such question can be settled quickly by a CTRL-F search. You're talking about interpretations, which are inherently subjective.

In 5e, "the RAW" are still what is written in the book, and "what is permitted by the RAW" is going to be a lot broader because the RAW expect a lot of judgment calls and rulings to keep the game flowing. A house rule in 5e is basically anything that says, "I know the RAW say X, but I don't like X, so we're doing Y." There's a lot less of that simply because 5e has so much room for rulings that lie within the RAW.

This, at least, is how I use the terms. I don't actually mind house rules. Even if I'm a stickler for accuracy in defining terms.

[Valmark]

But the status of "RAW" or "not RAW" doesn't mean anything useful! It's a red herring. Because you're not talking about the text itself at that point--any such question can be settled quickly by a CTRL-F search. You're talking about interpretations, which are inherently subjective.

Depends.
If I say something about how sneak attack works and you come around and say "no, because sneak attack requires flanking" because that's how you house ruled it the distinction becomes important because most people won't be playing at your table (meaning that they aren't there, not that they avoid you specifically) and won't care about how you use it. All you'd be doing is creating confusion.

Using RAW creates a common ground for people to work on, one that is widely spread and an easy to use, short word is useful.

If you have fixed in your mind that RAW is a term used to tell people they are wrong... That's just your opinion.
Personally I read it as being exactly what it says- written rules. It has no secondary significance and it's useful to convey what I talk about- it takes me less to type RAW then it takes to type "book". And I find "The book's Sneak Attack" worst to read then "Sneak Attack RAW".

Instead of beating on the fact that RAW "means nothing" you should address the wrong usage of it, which is both what you said truly disturbs you and probably a generally shared opinion. As you saw from this thread people do have a meaning for RAW, wether you share that definition or not.

If anything, "RAW means nothing" sounds as absolutist and bad as "That's not how I read the RAW your way is the wrong way" because you are still presenting an opinion not universal and making it look like it's the only one interpretation. Either you ignore these "RAW-worshippers" or you have fun engaging the argument, IMO. Unless there is some kind of jury nothing forces you to stay and reply to them, or stay at all.

[Tanarii]

But the status of "RAW" or "not RAW" doesn't mean anything useful! It's a red herring. Because you're not talking about the text itself at that point--any such question can be settled quickly by a CTRL-F search. You're talking about interpretations, which are inherently subjective.
Ultimately I feel like I agree with you, despite a differing interpretation of what RAW actually encompasses.

At most, arguing over interpretations of what the written rules mean is fine on forums, if the end goal is understanding what ones own interpretation of the rule is and seeing opposing points of view. Probably more commonly, it's just a form of entertainment. Even if someone takes it "too seriously", ultimately it's still just arguing on the internet. People do that with forms of entertainment all the time. :smallamused:

On the up side, using it to mean "we're arguing about interpretations of the written rule" does set some broad boundaries for the discussion at hand. On the down side, using it (as in "that's not RAW") to be dismissive of others interpretations doesn't accomplish much other than as a rhetorical trick.

[Xetheral]

But the status of "RAW" or "not RAW" doesn't mean anything useful! It's a red herring. Because you're not talking about the text itself at that point--any such question can be settled quickly by a CTRL-F search. You're talking about interpretations, which are inherently subjective.

In my opinion, whether or not "the status of RAW or not RAW" is useful is itself both subjective and contextual. When I sit down and run a game, I'm going to make on-the-fly rulings with an eye to maximizing the amount of fun. In that context, it doesn't matter to me whether my ruling is RAW or not RAW, so, as you say, the "RAW-status" of my ruling lacks utility.

In other contexts, however, I see more utility. For example, when considering whether or not to use a particular game system, it matters to me whether the players can get a good sense of how the game will be played just from reading the RAW. If there are too many places where the RAW is open-ended, ambiguous, confusing, contradictory, controversial or non-sensical, I know I'll need to put in additional effort up-front to manage the players' expectations (and if that effort comes in the form of a rulings/house-rules document, there is a complexity cost associated with the length of that document). In this context, it does indeed matter to me what the "RAW-status" is of each particular rule (although it's enough to determine "clear" vs "not clear").

Similarly, it matters to me whether the rules in my players' copies of the book are consistent with other written material, such as errata, FAQs, or developer commentary. Since different players will likely have different levels of familiarity with extra-textual sources, it is helpful for me as the DM to be knowledgeable about where there are apparent conflicts between the different sources. To do that, I need to be familiar with the various ways each source--including RAW--can be interpreted. If I simply dismiss the distinction between (e.g.) RAW and Sage Advice as "not useful", I'd be less able to manage player expectations and address interpretative conflicts that arise at the table.

So while I entirely agree with you that a declaration that "x is RAW" is useless and non-substantive as a persuasive argument, I can't agree with your broader claim that the distinction between RAW and houserules is meaningless. Sure, differences in interpretation can make an objective determination of the "RAW-status" of a rule impossible*, but the conceptual difference between limiting the interpretative scope to only the text versus including extra-textual sources is still meaningful and useful.

*Or merely difficult, depending on one's philosophical views on the nature of language and communication.

[Asisreo1]

RAW has its uses when comparing options, especially when it could dramatically affect its effectiveness when choosing an option in the theoretical sense.

If I was playing a wizard and I was choosing between Witch Bolt or Magic Missile, the RAW can determine what happens because RAW is the most likely ruling in your build. If the player doesn't know RAW and assume Witch Bolt automatically applies damage as soon as the spell is cast with no roll, it may seem extremely better than intended and a DM that rules RAW for convenience will shut them down.

[TheUser]

Searched D&D Beyond for the strings "house rule" or "houserule". No relevant results.

Searched D&D Beyond for the strings "RAW" or "Rules as Written". Only relevant result is in the Sage Advice Compendium, which is not, by itself, part of the rules text (being "merely" official rulings). And goes on to say that "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions." [B]So if SAC is RAW, then DM rulings are even more so RAW-mandated (not a separate category of thing at all)--the DM's rulings are the rules.

This is the first error in your conceit, SAC isn't RAW. It's an online advice column to help with player adjudications.
In short, SAC isn't the rule book.


Hence, there is no such thing (by RAW) as RAW. Or houserules. There are only rules. And those rules are whatever the DM + players decide to play by.

This is the second error; you are conflating the term rules with rulings.

There are rules, but the "rulings" or results of those rules are always adjudicated by the DM.


Thus, if you claim to obey RAW only, you're not following RAW. Or at least invoking concepts outside of the text to do so, which contradicts a RAW-only stance.

Basically, my point is that we should worry less about picking apart the text and more about figuring out what works for your particular table in each circumstance. A DM's ruling, accepted by the table, is the highest and only true rule that exists. So we should work on making those rulings better, whether that means closer to the text[1], further from the text, or disregarding the text entirely.

[1] as it often does. Because the defaults set out in the PHB, DMG, and MM, along with the variants in other books, form a pretty darn good framework IMO. Not a perfect one, and not one suited to every game. But most of the time, aligning on those defaults is a good start.

RAW is important because without it, the participants have no way to frame their common expectations. The idea being, we should all come to the table and know how things work. If I build my character around a specific set of rules, my expectations are that the DM will also adhere to those rules, despite the fact that they don't have to.

And while a DM has the authority to overturn, or overrule anything written in the rule book, that doesn't invalidate them being there, nor does it mean they are right to overlook them.

When a DM passes a ruling that a player thinks is outside the bounds of the rules, the player has a form of recourse, and can say "hey, the rules of the book, framed it in such a way that my expectations were as follows." and the DM can decide, "are the expectations this player has over this reading of the rule accurate/healthy for the game/appropriate in this context etc." and sort of go from there. But managing the expectations of all the participants before they get to the table is extremely important and is entirely the premise of RAW.

I get that you are burnt out over RAW discussions and having people misinterpret words/phrases etc. but confirming what the rules lay out is important for managing those expectations. HOWEVER! it's hardly infallible, nor does it always prove to be the best thing for a game's enjoyment level....

Enter exhibit A: Sculpt Spells. Which I point to as much as possible now, to show that Rules as Written is entirely fallible. Sculpt Spells (Evocation Wizard level 2 feature) is an instance of RAW that 0% of players and DM's adhere to, and it's mostly because a cursory reading of the rule creates expectations that it should function one way, and only when we pick over the text and see that it says "equal to" that we see it's a terrible designed rule that doesn't function as the designers intended or even as the player might expect upon initial reading.

And you know what?! It -still- hasn't been subject to errata! More than 6 YEARS later. That's how bad the RAW is. It's so sneakily bad, that the game's own designers haven't deemed it a problem yet.

[Tanarii]

If there are too many places where the RAW is open-ended, ambiguous, confusing, contradictory, controversial or non-sensical, I know I'll need to put in additional effort up-front to manage the players' expectations (and if that effort comes in the form of a rulings/house-rules document, there is a complexity cost associated with the length of that document).
This edition is more like BECMI, there is just the right amount of rules to hold it mostly in your head except for spells, and the DM can fill in the blanks handily. But a little more coherent and less contradictory.

That's actually true of most editions of D&D when they're first released. IMO, it's only later as splat and additional rules get added that extensive house rules documents become necessary.

5e has a number of variant rules a DM needs to be explicit about, and (and usual for every edition to date) how stealth and vision is going to work needs to be touched on. But you can fit everything into a 2 page session 0 doc including character options and variant rules available.

[Valmark]

Enter exhibit A: Sculpt Spells. Which I point to as much as possible now, to show that Rules as Written is entirely fallible. Sculpt Spells (Evocation Wizard level 2 feature) is an instance of RAW that 0% of players and DM's adhere to, and it's mostly because a cursory reading of the rule creates expectations that it should function one way, and only when we pick over the text and see that it says "equal to" that we see it's a terrible designed rule that doesn't function as the designers intended or even as the player might expect upon initial reading.

And you know what?! It -still- hasn't been subject to errata! More than 6 YEARS later. That's how bad the RAW is. It's so sneakily bad, that the game's own designers haven't deemed it a problem yet.

This example proves Phoenix's point though. It's entirely reasonable to read it as if you can pick a number up to "1+X" but you're putting it down as if your reading is the one real read.

I mean, I agree with everything you said before the example, but when Phoenix talks about people presenting their ruling as the ONLY ruling they kinda refer to this. At least from what I understood.

[Unoriginal]

I think people are conflating the literalist reading of Rules as Written with the use of "RAW" as a rhetorical hammer to argue there is only one valid interpretation to what is written.

Which is another example of why literalist readings don't work.


To reiterate: no one is arguing that there is no written rules. No one is arguing that the rules in the books are what people tend to discuss because the variations to the game made at each tables are unique to said table and such harder to discuss in a general, online context.

What is being argued is that the term "RAW", which supposedly should just mean "the text in the book" (albeit in a redundant manner), is used to mean "this one interpretation of the text in the book is the correct one".

Basically, if someone actually literally meant "RAW" as "what is written in the book", they should either just say "the rules", "the text" or straight up give a direct quote from the book. If you are interpreting something, then it is not RAW by definition, but many people are using the term as a shorthand to declare X interpretation correct, or at least, the one interpretation that the book supports.

[Segev]

Basically, if someone actually literally meant "RAW" as "what is written in the book", they should either just say "the rules", "the text" or straight up give a direct quote from the book. If you are interpreting something, then it is not RAW by definition, but many people are using the term as a shorthand to declare X interpretation correct, or at least, the one interpretation that the book supports.

I say "the RAW" when I mean "the rules that actually appear in text." I usually say something like "is a valid ruling under the RAW" if I am talking about interpretation that I feel are valid rules because the RAW (again, the actual text) requires some amount of interpretation, and the interpretation is one that meets all the requirements of the RAW.

If I say "the rules," I am usually being a little looser and discussing both technical RAW and valid rulings under the RAW.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I say "the RAW" when I mean "the rules that actually appear in text." I usually say something like "is a valid ruling under the RAW" if I am talking about interpretation that I feel are valid rules because the RAW (again, the actual text) requires some amount of interpretation, and the interpretation is one that meets all the requirements of the RAW.

If I say "the rules," I am usually being a little looser and discussing both technical RAW and valid rulings under the RAW.

And you're one of the few consistent ones. For which I'm grateful. Even if we don't always agree, you at least make actual arguments.

[TheUser]

This example proves Phoenix's point though. It's entirely reasonable to read it as if you can pick a number up to "1+X" but you're putting it down as if your reading is the one real read.

Yes, I was making a concession that RAW is not always the holy grail of rulings.



I mean, I agree with everything you said before the example, but when Phoenix talks about people presenting their ruling as the ONLY ruling they kinda refer to this. At least from what I understood.

I'm glad you agree.

Here's the irony though: we wouldn't know just how broken RAW is in select cases and where if we didn't do this type of painstaking scrutiny of a rule's syntax to begin with.

It is far more often the case that RAW and RAI line up with great efficacy and that only by parsing that legalese mixed with syntax do we arrive at what a rule says and what function it fulfills vs what our expectations might be. However, without proper depth of understanding of what the RAW is actually saying, we are no longer making an edcuated decision as to why we would go against it. In essence, how can we know we are subverting the expectations the rules are generating without first directly and properly addressing and understanding what they are communicating on a profoundly technical level.

<EDIT: This whole conflating of interpretation vs literalist meaning that the thread seems to be pivoting to is something we can just point out on a case by case basis. There are very definitive meanings attached to words and objective properties; to be able to say when they have been misconstrued or misrepresented is important. Unlike what our grade school English teachers may have told us not every interpretation is valid. One must be accountable to their own reading comprehension (or lack thereof).>

Instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and raising both our hands in frustrated defeat as we forsook the whole concept of RAW, perhaps it is better to acknowledge RAW where it is accurately portraying the rulings and have the depth of familiarity with them to know when we as DM's would rule otherwise if only to create a more enjoyable experience for our players.

Just because we can't always lean on RAW to create a universal understanding of expectations for how the game is played doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try our best.

[Unoriginal]

Yes, I was making a concession that RAW is not always the holy grail of rulings.



I'm glad you agree.

Here's the irony though: we wouldn't know just how broken RAW is in select cases and where if we didn't do this type of painstaking scrutiny of a rule's syntax to begin with.

It is far more often the case that RAW and RAI line up with great efficacy and that only by parsing that legalese mixed with syntax do we arrive at what a rule says and what function it fulfills vs what our expectations might be. However, without proper depth of understanding of what the RAW is actually saying, we are no longer making an edcuated decision as to why we would go against it. In essence, how can we know we are subverting the expectations the rules are generating without first directly and properly addressing and understanding what they are communicating on a profoundly technical level.

Instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and raising both our hands in frustrated defeat as we forsook the whole concept of RAW, perhaps it is better to acknowledge RAW where it is accurately portraying the rulings and have the depth of familiarity with them to know when we as DM's would rule otherwise if only to create a more enjoyable experience for our players.

Just because we can't always lean on RAW to create a universal understanding of expectations for how the game is played doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try our best.

Or we can accept that several interpretations of the same rules/text can be equally correct and that there is no objective "Rules as Written".

[Valmark]

Yes, I was making a concession that RAW is not always the holy grail of rulings.



I'm glad you agree.

Here's the irony though: we wouldn't know just how broken RAW is in select cases and where if we didn't do this type of painstaking scrutiny of a rule's syntax to begin with.

It is far more often the case that RAW and RAI line up with great efficacy and that only by parsing that legalese mixed with syntax do we arrive at what a rule says and what function it fulfills vs what our expectations might be. However, without proper depth of understanding of what the RAW is actually saying, we are no longer making an edcuated decision as to why we would go against it. In essence, how can we know we are subverting the expectations the rules are generating without first directly and properly addressing and understanding what they are communicating on a profoundly technical level.

<EDIT: This whole conflating of interpretation vs literalist meaning that the thread seems to be pivoting to is something we can just point out on a case by case basis. There are very definitive meanings attached to words and objective properties; to be able to say when they have been misconstrued or misrepresented is important. Unlike what our grade school English teachers may have told us not every interpretation is valid. One must be accountable to their own reading comprehension (or lack thereof).>

Instead of throwing out the baby with the bathwater and raising both our hands in frustrated defeat as we forsook the whole concept of RAW, perhaps it is better to acknowledge RAW where it is accurately portraying the rulings and have the depth of familiarity with them to know when we as DM's would rule otherwise if only to create a more enjoyable experience for our players.

Just because we can't always lean on RAW to create a universal understanding of expectations for how the game is played doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try our best.

I'm not sure if you're saying:

- That RAW (for clarity, I simply mean what is written on book) has one meaning and we need a deep understanding to know wether we use it correctly or not and wether we care about that or not;
- That RAW can have multiple readings and one shouldn't think their own is the only correct one;
- A third interpretation I'm missing;

Because it looks like you're saying the first one when I thought you meant the second one in the previous post (besides the example).

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'm not sure if you're saying:

- That RAW (for clarity, I simply mean what is written on book) has one meaning and we need a deep understanding to know wether we use it correctly or not and wether we care about that or not;
- That RAW can have multiple readings and one shouldn't think their own is the only correct one;
- A third interpretation I'm missing;

Because it looks like you're saying the first one when I thought you meant the second one in the previous post (besides the example).

Going into this--I see a few possible cases for meanings of the text:

Definition: make sense == obeys the rules of grammar and context. This is purely textual, without reference to game rules.
Definition: works well == doesn't cause absurdities when interacting with other rules.

Any piece of the text can be

Clear: There is only one reading that both makes sense and also works well at the game level.
Multi-valued: There are multiple readings that make sense and all of them work well at the game level.
Ambiguous: There are multiple readings that make sense, some of which work well at the game level and some of which do not.
Missense: There are one or more readings that makes sense, but none of them work well at the game level.
Nonsense: There are no readings that make sense, whether they work well at the game level is irrelevant.

The last two categories are outright flaws. That text is garbage--no information can be gained from it. I'd say that missense is worse than nonsense--you can be tricked down the path of taking an interpretation that makes the whole game go kerplunk. Errata is fully justified, in my opinion, to correct these (either by striking out offending words or replacing whole chunks with something that makes sense/works).

The first category is boring. Everyone agrees on it, except those engaging in illiteracy, laziness (not actually reading), or bad faith. The second (outside of "someone is wrong on the internet") is fine--choose a reading that works for your table and call it good. Except there are lots of people who prefer to win arguments on the internet, so you get a lot of "that's not the rules!" arguments here when both sides are right and wrong.

The third require further analysis that the text can't really help you with. You have to apply canons of construction and decide between the ones that make sense. This requires further understanding of the rest of the ruleset and how it hangs together. In my experience, this category is thankfully pretty small in 5e, and the "wrong answers" are either pretty obvious or pretty innocuous.

RAW (in the "pure text" sense) only helps with the first part of this analysis. Reading the text can tell you if something makes sense (using my definition above). It doesn't tell you if something works well. So all it does without further analysis beyond the text itself is filter out the nonsense category (which IMX is very small to begin with) and begin filtering out the interpretations that don't make sense textually. So, partially retracting my prior absolutism, it does have some value. But it's not the end-all and be-all in the vast majority of cases. It's evidence, not conclusion.

[TheUser]

I'm not sure if you're saying:

- That RAW (for clarity, I simply mean what is written on book) has one meaning and we need a deep understanding to know wether we use it correctly or not and wether we care about that or not;
- That RAW can have multiple readings and one shouldn't think their own is the only correct one;
- A third interpretation I'm missing;

Because it looks like you're saying the first one when I thought you meant the second one in the previous post (besides the example).

What I've said is that the RAW is extremely important for setting up the expectations that both the players and the DM come to the table with, and that despite the ability to overrule any of those rules it is important that we understand what those rules actually say, otherwise, how could we possibly know we are even overruling them and subverting the expectations our participants may come to the table with. Until recently, this was a very big deal with respects to things like Adventurers League, because abject rulings with class features meant players could have a character using certain features one way as they might expect only to have the rug pulled from under them by a new DM.

My sculpt example demonstrated a rule that undercut the expectations generated by a cursory reading, and one where RAW just creates a more finicky obtuse and terrible rule. This was done to show that even RAW has flaws but ultimately is a very cornercase example that can be used to show the fallibility of the RAW but shouldn't be used as an excuse to upheave the whole system, more just an out when we clearly don't agree with RAW, but this is done sparingly and hopefully with the participants enjoyment in mind.


Or we can accept that several interpretations of the same rules/text can be equally correct and that there is no objective "Rules as Written".

I don't accept that. I think that context provides a means for differentiation with regards to RAW and its applicability, but interpretation of words and their meanings, especially from a rules perspective, benefits from the certainty that there is a "most correct" answer. Otherwise the rules begin to collapse under the weight of their own ambiguity and devolve into rulings based on feelings which promotes inconsistency and an inability to predict how any rule can be treated.

I might be more swayed were you to offer me a solid example of a rule and multiple rulings you find acceptable based on differing interpretations that all manage to adhere to the RAW.

Edited for typos

[Segev]

I think the statement, "There is no objective 'rules as written,'" is technically incorrect, but is trying to say, "There is no objective one true way to read the rules as written."

And in a number of cases, this is accurate. A good example is the question of whether Dueling applies to thrown weapons. One can reasonably rule that the damage roll happens when the thrown weapon is physically hitting the target, and thus is not wielded in one hand at that time, so the dueling style doesn't apply. One can equally reasonably rule that the weapon was wielded in one hand to make the attack, and thus the damage is dealt by a weapon wielded in one hand, and the dueling style does apply. Both are perfectly valid rulings under the RAW.

There is technically an objective statement about what the RAW are: we can quote them. But there is no objectively correct answer to the question of whether dueling applies, at least if we restrict ourselves to the RAW. Because you can justify either ruling in a way that comports with the RAW. It comes down to some judgment calls by the DM. And, if we're honest, it probably comes down to whether the DM thinks that's balanced or not.

[TheUser]

-snip-

I think there is a very cut and dry "most correct" answer for that particular case and that the tendency of people who don't like what is very clearly RAW will squawk that "there is no right answer" as a means to seem like they aren't wrong. This is not always the case but it seems common enough.

"Wield" implies holding. If you throw something you aren't wielding it, you -were- but currently aren't.

I won't continue to belabor my stance as the thread was closed for good reason. But at least in my eyes, there is a very clear meaning to the RAW despite how unpopular it was.

[Valmark]

I won't continue to belabor my stance as the thread was closed for good reason. But at least in my eyes, there is a very clear meaning to the RAW despite how unpopular it was.

That's the point. "In your eyes there is a very clear meaning to the RAW" is just your opinion. The problem is when people think their opinion is the only way to read it.

It's not a matter of "People need to read the RAW carefully to know what it means" it's "People read the RAW (which, again, only means text) and understand it their own way".

[TheUser]

That's the point. "In your eyes there is a very clear meaning to the RAW" is just your opinion. The problem is when people think their opinion is the only way to read it.

It's not a matter of "People need to read the RAW carefully to know what it means" it's "People read the RAW (which, again, only means text) and understand it their own way".

I also am of the opinion that the earth is round and orbits the sun. Does my labelling them an opinion or you reminding us of that fact do anything to deconstruct or engage that opinion or prove that it is factually untrue?

Perhaps that is the point.

[Segev]

I also am of the opinion that the earth is round and orbits the sun. Does my labelling them an opinion or you reminding us of that fact do anything to deconstruct or engage that opinion or prove that it is factually untrue?

Perhaps that is the point.

No, but you kind-of are proving the point about "One True RAW" argumentation.

Just because you don't agree that the rules can be read a certain way doesn't make you any more right than somebody who points out that the Earth is very clearly flat, I mean, just look at it, is totally correct and unquestionable.

It wasn't my intention to start that particular discussion up again, but to point out that there can be disagreement over what the RAW say. You feel very strongly that only one way is correct. However, there's enough room for argument. In 5e, this is somewhat by design: rules are meant to be interpreted and moved on from, now dwelt upon. But even in 3.5, there's room for argument a lot of the time, and people tend to feel much more strongly about it because 3.5 is designed with the intent that the RAW be objectively usable exactly one way.

[Unoriginal]

I also am of the opinion that the earth is round and orbits the sun. Does my labelling them an opinion or you reminding us of that fact do anything to deconstruct or engage that opinion or prove that it is factually untrue?

Perhaps that is the point.

Those are not opinions, though, they're facts.

Interpreting a piece of written language certainly isn't the same.

[JNAProductions]

Those are not opinions, though, they're facts.

Interpreting a piece of written language certainly isn't the same.

Exactly. Most of the RAW is pretty clear-Wizards get 2 spells in their books on level up, Fighters gain 1d10+Con mod HP on a level up, Longswords do 1d8 damage from one hand and 1d10 from two, etc. etc.

But there are places where there's ambiguity. Reasonable people can read the RAW and come away with different results, without either one being verifiably wrong. You can argue that your interpretation is more true to RAW, or, probably better, that your interpretation lets gameplay flow smoother or leads to less weirdness, but you can't say that the other person is straight-up wrong.

[KorvinStarmast]

Or we can accept that several interpretations of the same rules/text can be equally correct and that there is no objective "Rules as Written". Yes, we can.

I think the statement, "There is no objective 'rules as written,'" is technically incorrect, but is trying to say, "There is no objective one true way to read the rules as written." Indeed.

{snip} javelin thing {snip} Both are perfectly valid rulings under the RAW. Yes. The problem comes when on party says "mine is the only valid reading" ... and I think that is what has spawned frustration with the use and abuse of the term our OP is pointing to.

Because you can justify either ruling in a way that comports with the RAW. It comes down to some judgment calls by the DM. And, if we're honest, it probably comes down to whether the DM thinks that's balanced or not. Not to mention that in D&D 5e DM rulings themselves are Rules As Written. (See PHB page 6 among other places and in the DMG).

I think there is a very cut and dry "most correct" answer for that particular case Nope, there is not. If you were right about that the recent 50 page thread would not have done what it did. But (1) we are not going to resurrect that thread here and (2) I refer you back to what I just referred to as an actual rule that you can use (above where I quoted you there). It's in the DMG. The short version is "make a ruling a play on"

[TheUser]

Those are not opinions, though, they're facts.

Interpreting a piece of written language certainly isn't the same.

Really? Because the written language has objective properties and definitive meanings.

In fact, the statements of the earth being round and orbiting the sun, have been expressed in written language that require interpretation, despite being a rather simple one....

[JNAProductions]

Really? Because the written language has objective properties and definitive meanings.

In fact, the statements of the earth being round and orbiting the sun, have been expressed in written language that require interpretation, despite being a rather simple one....

"You guys are doing great," said to a group of mixed gender.
Am I referring to the men in the group, or all of them?

"You're all doing great," said to that same group is much clearer and less ambiguous.

Moreover, User, no one is saying every piece of RAW is ambiguous and up to interpretation. It's mostly corner cases, weird interactions, stuff like that. The majority of 5E is pretty clear. If I cast Shield, I get +5 to my AC till the start of my next turn. If I Action Surge, I can take another action this turn. Those aren't up for debate.

[PhoenixPhyre]

"You guys are doing great," said to a group of mixed gender.
Am I referring to the men in the group, or all of them?

"You're all doing great," said to that same group is much clearer and less ambiguous.

Moreover, User, no one is saying every piece of RAW is ambiguous and up to interpretation. It's mostly corner cases, weird interactions, stuff like that. The majority of 5E is pretty clear. If I cast Shield, I get +5 to my AC till the start of my next turn. If I Action Surge, I can take another action this turn. Those aren't up for debate.

But even those are matters of (perfectly clear) interpretation. Those are all type 1 text-interpretation issues--there's one textual answer, and it works.

All the fun things are type 2 or 3.

Type 4 and 5 are funny, but generally pretty obviously bad and, IMX, rare in 5e. Those are the what in the world does this even mean? or uh.....that's bad.

And IMX, there's a tradeoff. You can make more specific rules and more rigorous canons of construction to turn types 2 and 3 into type 1...at the cost of also turning some of them into types 4 and 5. Because language is tricky and people screw up, especially when you're adding tons of rules.

[TheUser]

Nope, there is not. If you were right about that the recent 50 page thread would not have done what it did. But (1) we are not going to resurrect that thread here and (2) I refer you back to what I just referred to as an actual rule that you can use (above where I quoted you there). It's in the DMG. The short version is "make a ruling a play on"

People's inability to dilineate or deliberate a consensus in a largely circular 50 page thread does not mean the right answer doesn't exist. I imagine it could've carried on for over a 100 pages with the amount of retreading and lack of engagement with the arguments. It could just as well mean there is a right answer and certain individuals no matter how compelled by logic, rationale and reasoning will dig in their heels to uphold a stance and label it "no true answer" because they think things like "past vs present tense" are ignorable or trivial because it doesn't suit their stance.

And as for the DMG quote it is once again, a conflation of rules vs rulings. Which are in fact, seperate, albeit very intertwined entities. To simplify, what a rule says is one thing, how you choose to rule on it is another thing entirely. That does not mean we simply chock up the rules as meaningless or bereft of value or for a person to point at and call upon them for clarity as a flawed premise.

[JNAProductions]

People's inability to dilineate or deliberate a consensus in a largely circular 50 page thread does not mean the right answer doesn't exist. I imagine it could've carried on for over a 100 pages with the amount of retreading and lack of engagement with the arguments. It could just as well mean there is a right answer and certain individuals no matter how compelled by logic, rationale and reasoning will dig in their heels to uphold a stance and label it "no true answer" because they think things like "past vs present tense" are ignorable or trivial because it doesn't suit their stance.

And as for the DMG quote it is once again, a conflation of rules vs rulings. Which are in fact, seperate, albeit very intertwined entities. To simplify, what a rule says is one thing, how you choose to rule on it is another thing entirely. That does not mean we simply chock up the rules as meaningless or bereft of value or for a person to point at and call upon them for clarity as a flawed premise.

So you're saying that there is not a single place in all of 5E's rulebooks where the RAW cannot lead to a single, clear answer? Absolutely no place where there's any shred of ambiguity?

[MaxWilson]

"You guys are doing great," said to a group of mixed gender.
Am I referring to the men in the group, or all of them?

"You're all doing great," said to that same group is much clearer and less ambiguous.

If you want to address specifically the males, "You guys are doing great, especially the men."

Fun fact: the word "guy" originally (in 1806) meant "a person of grotesque or unusual appearance," a reference to Guy Fawkes effigies. And "girl" in 1300 meant "a young person (of either sex)".

Ref: https://www.etymonline.com/word/guy https://www.etymonline.com/word/girl

[KorvinStarmast]

And as for the DMG quote it is once again, a conflation of rules vs rulings. I am sorry, which edition are you playing? Also, please go back to PHB page 6.

[JNAProductions]

If you want to address specifically the males, "You guys are doing great, especially the men."

Fun fact: the word "guy" originally (in 1806) meant "a person of grotesque or unusual appearance," a reference to Guy Fawkes effigies. And "girl" in 1300 meant "a young person (of either sex)".

Ref: https://www.etymonline.com/word/guy https://www.etymonline.com/word/girl

I'm well aware that the sentence can be made more clear.

But the point is that it's not clear. It's ambiguous-as English and other languages often are.

Thanks for the tidbit, though! Never knew that. :)

[TheUser]

"You guys are doing great," said to a group of mixed gender.
Am I referring to the men in the group, or all of them?

"You're all doing great," said to that same group is much clearer and less ambiguous.


Not only does this example not work, as definitively we see that "guys" used as plural can refer to people regardless of sex:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guy

But this specific example doesn't even come up in any rule book either....



Moreover, User, no one is saying every piece of RAW is ambiguous and up to interpretation. It's mostly corner cases, weird interactions, stuff like that. The majority of 5E is pretty clear. If I cast Shield, I get +5 to my AC till the start of my next turn. If I Action Surge, I can take another action this turn. Those aren't up for debate.

And what I'm saying is that the despite any percieved ambiguity in rules (yet to be referenced except the 50 page thread that shall not be named, which I've shown has a definitive albeit unpopular answer :P) the rules always have a "most correct" answer.

This isn't literature, where our intepretation determines it's worth or value, it's a rules system where words have distinctive meanings.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And what I'm saying is that the despite any percieved ambiguity in rules (yet to be referenced except the 50 page thread that shall not be named, which I've shown has a definitive albeit unpopular answer :P) the rules always have a "most correct" answer.

This isn't literature, where our intepretation determines it's worth or value, it's a rules system where words have distinctive meanings.

"Most correct" is an ought issue, not an is issue. It's based on your own values and desires. It's entirely table-subjective, not text-objective.

Basically, it's pure opinion.

[Unoriginal]

And what I'm saying is that the despite any percieved ambiguity in rules (yet to be referenced except the 50 page thread that shall not be named, which I've shown has a definitive albeit unpopular answer :P) the rules always have a "most correct" answer.

This isn't literature, where our intepretation determines it's worth or value, it's a rules system where words have distinctive meanings.

So, what is the "most correct" answer to the Druid's metal armor prohibition?

[JNAProductions]

Not only does this example not work, as definitively we see that "guys" used as plural can refer to people regardless of sex:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/guy

But this specific example doesn't even come up in any rule book either....

And what I'm saying is that the despite any percieved ambiguity in rules (yet to be referenced except the 50 page thread that shall not be named, which I've shown has a definitive albeit unpopular answer :P) the rules always have a "most correct" answer.

This isn't literature, where our intepretation determines it's worth or value, it's a rules system where words have distinctive meanings.

It CAN be used. It is not always used such. If I say "Guys to the left, girls to the right," is there confusion about which gender should go where?

And you've not shown that you have the one true answer to said thread.


So, what is the "most correct" answer to the Druid's metal armor prohibition?

Ack! Not that! :P

In all seriousness, I wish they either gave it mechanical weight (no using Druid powers until you finish a rest after you don metal armor) or axed it entirely. As-is, it's more likely to cause arguments than if it was actually a solid rule, since it's just in a very weird spot.

I'd houserule it either way-if you want your Druid to wear metal armor, go nuts. But if it was a solid, mechanically weighty rule, then it'd at least be explicit.

[Xetheral]

I might be more swayed were you to offer me a solid example of a rule and multiple rulings you find acceptable based on differing interpretations that all manage to adhere to the RAW.

Your sculpt spells example is a great example of RAW that can be validly read in multiple ways. The key line in sculpt spells is: "you can choose a number of [creatures you can see] equal to 1 + the spell’s level". In English such a sentence can be read as creating either an equality or an inequality.

As an informal example, the analogous sentence "you can choose three friends to invite to your birthday party" would most naturally read as creating an inequality where the number of guests must be less than or equal to three, rather than exactly three.

More formally, if approached from a deductive logic, math, or CS perspective where clear expression of such relationships is important, one might conclude that the equality interpretation is obviously superior, since the authors neglected to use the phrase "up-to" rather than "equal". But if approached from a legal perspective where "the greater power includes the lesser power" is a common interpretative principle, the ability to choose a number of creatures equal to X inherently includes the ability to choose X-1 creatures, in which case the word "equal" necessarily refers to an inequality.

There is no objective method available to decide which of these two readings is favored over the other, even though both follow the RAW. And even if you disagree that both follow the RAW, there is still no objective method available to prove whether or not both readings follow the RAW.

[TheUser]

So you're saying that there is not a single place in all of 5E's rulebooks where the RAW cannot lead to a single, clear answer? Absolutely no place where there's any shred of ambiguity?

I think this must be a throwback to my education, where it is often the case where we were given multiple choice answers with more than one correct answer but must be prescient of the most correct answer. It was important, especially given the context.


It CAN be used. It is not always used such. If I say "Guys to the left, girls to the right," is there confusion about which gender should go where?

And you've not shown that you have the one true answer to said thread.


See my other post where I reference merriam webster. "Guy" as a singular refers to a man or fellow, "guys" with an s is gender neutral. It's really not the slippery slope you make it out to be.

As for the answer to a thrown javelin adding +2 from dueling the answer is so obviously "no" because you aren't "wielding" a thrown javelin. You -were- wielding it, but the rule is operative of the present tense. ("When wielding..") And one must be holding a tool or weapon to wield it, if you are no longer wielding it you don't deal the +2 damage.

People can winge all they want but it's exceedingly cut and dry.

[KorvinStarmast]

As for the answer to a thrown javelin adding +2 from dueling the answer is so obviously "no" because you aren't "wielding" a thrown javelin. You -were- wielding it, but the rule is operative of the present tense. ("When wielding..") And one must be holding a tool or weapon to wield it, if you are no longer wielding it you don't deal the +2 damage.
It's not obvious,
it was ambiguous,
so they (some interested players and DMs) used a modern communications device and asked the guy who wrote the rules. He said, "Yeah, you get the +2 damage."
Who am I gonna believe: him or you?
Him.
When you say "there is a more correct answer" - then I'll follow that line of thought for a minute. Since there can be two ways to read the combination of rules involved (multiple entries that combine for a unified understanding - it sure was useful when the one responsible for the rules text points to one of the two ways without reservation. +2 damage is "more correct," thanks. :smallsmile:

When it's at your table, make a ruling and play on.

[TheUser]

It's not obvious,
it was ambiguous,
so they (some interested players and DMs) used a modern communications device and asked the guy who wrote the rules. He said, "Yeah, you get the +2 damage."
Who am I gonna believe: him or you?
Him.
When you say "there is a more correct answer" - since there can be two ways to read the combination of rules involved, it sure is useful when the one responsible for the rules text points to one of the two ways without reservation.

Appeal to authority logical fallacy. JC rulings have even contradicted themselves; shield master has been ruled on twice with two different and mutually exclusive adjudications.

Sage advice and JC rulings are the "the intent of the designers" not errata or RAW

[JNAProductions]

Appeal to authority logical fallacy. JC rulings have even contradicted themselves; shield master has been ruled on twice with two different and mutually exclusive adjudications.

Sage advice and JC rulings are the "the intent of the designers" not errata or RAW

You yourself have said that your interpretation is the "most correct"-which would have to mean that there are other answers that are still correct.

Would it not make the most sense for the most correct of the correct answers to be the one the designers intended?

[Valmark]

I think this must be a throwback to my education, where it is often the case where we were given multiple choice answers with more than one correct answer but must be prescient of the most correct answer. It was important, especially given the context.

See my other post where I reference merriam webster. "Guy" as a singular refers to a man or fellow, "guys" with an s is gender neutral. It's really not the slippery slope you make it out to be.

As for the answer to a thrown javelin adding +2 from dueling the answer is so obviously "no" because you aren't "wielding" a thrown javelin. You -were- wielding it, but the rule is operative of the present tense. ("When wielding..") And one must be holding a tool or weapon to wield it, if you are no longer wielding it you don't deal the +2 damage.

People can winge all they want but it's exceedingly cut and dry.

Yes, because 'wielding' only means to hold. You cannot use it any other way. If somebody throws a knife at me he wasn't assaulting me wielding a knife.

If somebody says "The Minister was elected, but everyone knew it was his secretary who really wielded the power" it means the secretary had an object called power in their hand.

EDIT: Plus, even in the chance that there even was a single most correct answer (there isn't) according to the text it surely wouldn't be the one that goes against the books. Returning Weapon calls the person that threw the weapon its wielder, so you can't stop wielding it when you throw it.

[KorvinStarmast]

Appeal to authority logical fallacy. RAW
Actually, there is no fallacy at all; that's not even a nice try. Gee, we see yet another internet post that tries to declare a fallacy when none was used.

I observe that you are deliberately demonstrating the very problem that the that the OP is referring to; maybe it would be better to be a part of the solution instead.

No more time to waste with you in this thread; see you in other threads.
Happy gaming. :smallsmile:

[Xetheral]

Appeal to authority logical fallacy. JC rulings have even contradicted themselves; shield master has been ruled on twice with two different and mutually exclusive adjudications.

Sage advice and JC rulings are the "the intent of the designers" not errata or RAW

Choosing to rely on authority is not fallacious. To be an example of the appeal to authority fallacy KorvinStarmast would have had to be making a logical argument that relied on Crawford's ruling as evidence to support a different claim.

[TheUser]

You yourself have said that your interpretation is the "most correct"-which would have to mean that there are other answers that are still correct.

Would it not make the most sense for the most correct of the correct answers to be the one the designers intended?

It is our job to evaluate things on a case by case scenario; just because the potential for a "most correct" scenario to exist can happen, doesn't exclude the existence of wrong interpetations. The game designer is telling us how they'd be ruling on that particular instance. Again it's a conflation on rules vs rulings. And in this case the ruling is not in keeping with Rules as Written.

Saying that just because the game's own lead designer (not sole designer) has an interpretation does not make it the most correct one. That's called an appeal to authority and is a fallacious way to argue something.



Yes, because 'wielding' only means to hold. You cannot use it any other way. If somebody throws a knife at me he wasn't assaulting me wielding a knife.

If somebody says "The Minister was elected, but everyone knew it was his secretary who really wielded the power" it means the secretary had an object called power in their hand.

It is entirely clear based on context what the meaning of wield is here. If it is referring to a tool or weapon then it is indicative of holding it, where as wielding an abstract like power or authority is not. Trying to be deliberately obtuse is no longer arguing in good faith. If you require a refresher on how to evaluate the meaning of wield based on context I'll help you out:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wield

I can't be bothered anymore. Have fun "interpreting" everyone.

[Willie the Duck]

But (1) we are not going to resurrect that thread here
Apparently you spoke too soon.

[KorvinStarmast]

Apparently you spoke too soon. I realized what was going on and am no longer going to be part of the problem. :smallcool:

[JNAProductions]

It's that exact attitude that caused the thread to hit 50 pages.

If, in your games, you don't apply Dueling to thrown weapons, that's fine. No one is saying you have to.
But, you can't just unilaterally declare your interpretation as the best one. Well-you can. You just shouldn't.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It's that exact attitude that caused the thread to hit 50 pages.

If, in your games, you don't apply Dueling to thrown weapons, that's fine. No one is saying you have to.
But, you can't just unilaterally declare your interpretation as the best one. Well-you can. You just shouldn't.

Especially since what I do in my games has minimal, if any, influence on what you do in your games. Inter-game consistency is not a design goal of 5e generally, although it does matter for AL. But they have specific rules there that you agree to follow. Which often have little to do with the actual text, so even there an attitude of "(my reading of) the text is the Only True Way" is unhelpful.

[Valmark]

It is entirely clear based on context what the meaning of wield is here. If it is referring to a tool or weapon then it is indicative of holding it, where as wielding an abstract like power or authority is not. Trying to be deliberately obtuse is no longer arguing in good faith. If you require a refresher on how to evaluate the meaning of wield based on context I'll help you out:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wield

I can't be bothered anymore. Have fun "interpreting" everyone.

And yet, the books explicitely call somebody that threw their weapon its wielder as previously stated. If your stance is that the text has only one meaning and we need to understand it correctly you aren't doing a good job supporting that. Or maybe you're doing well using yourself as evidence of what one shouldn't do.

As shown, it's true that there are people that claim their own reading to be the right one- and these people are generally the one to tell you "no you're wrong". But that's... Not the word "RAW"'s problem. It's the attitude of the specific person.

And I don't even know what can be done, honestly- besides avoiding those specific people. Or engaging them knowing that an understanding is hard to reach.

[PhoenixPhyre]

And yet, the books explicitely call somebody that threw their weapon its wielder as previously stated. If your stance is that the text has only one meaning and we need to understand it correctly you aren't doing a good job supporting that. Or maybe you're doing well using yourself as evidence of what one shouldn't do.

As shown, it's true that there are people that claim their own reading to be the right one- and these people are generally the one to tell you "no you're wrong". But that's... Not the word "RAW"'s problem. It's the attitude of the specific person.

And I don't even know what can be done, honestly- besides avoiding those specific people. Or engaging them knowing that an understanding is hard to reach.

My (probably vain) hope was that by breaking the mistique/"myth" of RAW being some specific thing, those that want to push OneTrueWay-isms would have to come out in the open and acknowledge that. Or at least have less cover by claiming that their opinions are somehow fact. The term serves as a convenient shield, just as "what my guy would do" serves as a (now hopefully discredited) shield to defend in-game bad behavior. So that people claiming "RAW says" in claiming interpretation as fact would be seen as just saying "I believe", which is what that really means.

But as I said (and now acknowledge), that was a vain hope. :smallfrown:

[Segev]

I realized what was going on and am no longer going to be part of the problem. :smallcool:

:smallsigh: I regret using it as an example.

[KorvinStarmast]

:smallsigh: I regret using it as an example.
Obviously, the druid metallic armor would have been the better example.
:smallbiggrin: Yes, I am being evil .... 😈

[MaxWilson]

Obviously, the druid metallic armor would have been the better example.
:smallbiggrin: Yes, I am being evil .... 😈

By RAW exploding doesn't kill you.

[Unoriginal]

My (probably vain) hope was that by breaking the mistique/"myth" of RAW being some specific thing, those that want to push OneTrueWay-isms would have to come out in the open and acknowledge that. Or at least have less cover by claiming that their opinions are somehow fact. The term serves as a convenient shield, just as "what my guy would do" serves as a (now hopefully discredited) shield to defend in-game bad behavior. So that people claiming "RAW says" in claiming interpretation as fact would be seen as just saying "I believe", which is what that really means.

But as I said (and now acknowledge), that was a vain hope. :smallfrown:

We should call this use of the term "RAW" BatRAW.

As in "Holy BatRAW, Batman!"

[PhoenixPhyre]

By RAW exploding doesn't kill you.

More seriously, RAW by itself is full of holes. For example, by RAW, every creature (well, at least every PC) has an epic-sized bladder (and colon). No need to expel waste.

So we have to go beyond RAW just to get a playable game.


We should call this use of the term "RAW" BatRAW.

As in "Holy BatRAW, Batman!"

PR accepted. Push to production ASAP.

[MaxWilson]

More seriously, RAW by itself is full of holes. For example, by RAW, every creature (well, at least every PC) has an epic-sized bladder (and colon). No need to expel waste.

There's no evidence that creatures in D&D have atoms cellular differentiation at all, much less bladders and colons specifically. After all, D&D's elements are Aristotelian (Earth/Air/Fire/Water) not based on the periodic table (hydrogen, oxygen, etc.), and they may be infinitely divisible instead of atomic. (What happens if you cast Reduce on a hydrogen atom? The question doesn't matter if there are no indivisible atoms.)

Gravity in D&D is binary, either zero or fixed at 1g. Biology behaves very strangely not just with regard to healing but even hydration (you can make water last longer if you alternate dehydrating yourself, and hydrating to regain the exhaustion lost from dehydration the day before). Perhaps water, once drunk, simply returns to the elemental plane of Water.

[patchyman]

So, what is the "most correct" answer to the Druid's metal armor prohibition?

Yay! It took 4 pages, but my example is relevant again!

[Taevyr]

Appeal to authority logical fallacy. JC rulings have even contradicted themselves; shield master has been ruled on twice with two different and mutually exclusive adjudications.


Actually, there is no fallacy at all; that's not even a nice try. Gee, we see yet another internet post that tries to declare a fallacy when none was used.


Choosing to rely on authority is not fallacious. To be an example of the appeal to authority fallacy KorvinStarmast would have had to be making a logical argument that relied on Crawford's ruling as evidence to support a different claim.

Witholding any opinion on JC as a reputable source: declaring/discussing fallacies as the end-all/be-all of discussions eats itself through the simple "fallacy fallacy". Namely, "the fallacious belief that when someone uses fallacies in a discussion, it automatically means his/her stated viewpoint/opinion has to be wrong". Something often forgotten in the "gotcha!" game of internet discussions, so let's not start the "fallacy game" here.

In my view, 90% of the problem would be solved if everyone could just see that text isn't an objective thing. "Death of the Author" doesn't just apply to literature: even in a rulebook where the author's intent could be said to objectively be superior, the DM's entire job is to make on-the-fly rulings so you don't have to wait on a convenient tweet whenever there's a hitch. A DM's ruling is, as stated in the PHB/DMG, the correct interpretation of a given rule for their table. We're all just interpreting the text through our perspective, and debating what's the best interpretation is fine, and can even be necessary at times; maintaining there is a single correct "RAW" that everyone can obviously see isn't.


And let's not revive any closed threads: the javelin thread was fun to watch while it lasted, but it reached a clear impasse way before it hit 50 pages. And I think we may be enabling some sort of debate addiction in its victims, which is simply unconscionable

[PhoenixPhyre]

There's no evidence that creatures in D&D have atoms cellular differentiation at all, much less bladders and colons specifically. After all, D&D's elements are Aristotelian (Earth/Air/Fire/Water) not based on the periodic table (hydrogen, oxygen, etc.), and they may be infinitely divisible instead of atomic. (What happens if you cast Reduce on a hydrogen atom? The question doesn't matter if there are no indivisible atoms.)

I've actually made this a key element of my setting. If you cut someone open and look at their organs, you don't get nice cellular structures with differentiated pieces. Or anything below that. Basically, it's "science as would be familiar to a late-medieval (but pre-measurement-revolution) alchemist or monk". The gross-level things work basically the same, but all the underlying principles and facts are radically different.



Gravity in D&D is binary, either zero or fixed at 1g. Biology behaves very strangely not just with regard to healing but even hydration (you can make water last longer if you alternate dehydrating yourself, and hydrating to regain the exhaustion lost from dehydration the day before). Perhaps water, once drunk, simply returns to the elemental plane of Water.

Beyond that, simple things like conservation laws (energy, mass, and the various momentums especially) don't apply. Plate tectonics? Water cycles? Photosynthesis? Yeah, no.


Witholding any opinion on JC as a reputable source: declaring/discussing fallacies as the end-all/be-all of discussions eats itself through the simple "fallacy fallacy". Namely, "the fallacious belief that when someone uses fallacies in a discussion, it automatically means his/her stated viewpoint/opinion has to be wrong". Something often forgotten in the "gotcha!" game of internet discussions, so let's not start the "fallacy game" here.

In my view, 90% of the problem would be solved if everyone could just see that text isn't an objective thing. "Death of the Author" doesn't just apply to literature: even in a rulebook where the author's intent could be said to objectively be superior, the DM's entire job is to make on-the-fly rulings so you don't have to wait on a convenient tweet whenever there's a hitch. A DM's ruling is, as stated in the PHB/DMG, the correct interpretation of a given rule for their table. We're all just interpreting the text through our perspective, and debating what's the best interpretation is fine, and can even be necessary at times; maintaining there is a single correct "RAW" that everyone can obviously see isn't.

And let's not revive any closed threads: the javelin thread was fun to watch while it lasted, but it reached a clear impasse way before it hit 50 pages. And I think we may be enabling some sort of debate addiction in its victims, which is simply unconscionable

Agreed. The fallacy game is one of my (many) other pet peeves. And even though I strongly dislike the "death of the author" post-modernism as an interpretive method, there's something true there. Especially here. Just maybe not taken to the extent that the literature people do. :smallamused:

[Segev]

I will play Devil's Advocate here, because I agree that the fallacy fallacy gotcha game has nothing redeeming about it, but...

Calling out fallacies in arguments, while it doesn't prove the conclusion wrong, can prove the argument invalid. And in debating something, calling out a fallacious use of an argument is useful because it helps demonstrate that something being used either to attack your point or to support a point you're attacking is not, in fact, proving anything.

But you have to be ready to do more than just call out the fallacy. It helps if you can point out WHY the argument is fallacious, and then go on to explain why that undermines the position or attack being taken or levied by the other debater.

The "fallacy fallacy" game, though, is really annoying because it tends to lead to people incorrectly using/identifying "fallacies" and then just stopping as if that had proven their own point.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I will play Devil's Advocate here, because I agree that the fallacy fallacy gotcha game has nothing redeeming about it, but...

Calling out fallacies in arguments, while it doesn't prove the conclusion wrong, can prove the argument invalid. And in debating something, calling out a fallacious use of an argument is useful because it helps demonstrate that something being used either to attack your point or to support a point you're attacking is not, in fact, proving anything.

But you have to be ready to do more than just call out the fallacy. It helps if you can point out WHY the argument is fallacious, and then go on to explain why that undermines the position or attack being taken or levied by the other debater.

The "fallacy fallacy" game, though, is really annoying because it tends to lead to people incorrectly using/identifying "fallacies" and then just stopping as if that had proven their own point.

My issue is that fallacies only prove formal logic arguments invalid. And the ultra-vast majority of arguments here...aren't made following formal logic. They weave in other elements (such as value judgements, informal inductive reasoning, etc). Basically, showing a fallacy doesn't do all that much for natural-language discussions (as opposed to mathematical theorems).

Calling out fallacies (especially the RPG-specific ones), as you say, is just a lazy "you're wrong" and frequently involves stretching the other person's argument to fit the mold of that fallacy. And stretching the meaning of the fallacies themselves as well. As well as provoking a certain amount of defensiveness on the other person's part.

I'd much rather talk about argument pathologies--argument styles that tend to lead to bad results or arguments that don't make sense or don't prove what they set out to do. And those pathologies come from much more than just "fallacies".

[Segev]

My issue is that fallacies only prove formal logic arguments invalid. And the ultra-vast majority of arguments here...aren't made following formal logic. They weave in other elements (such as value judgements, informal inductive reasoning, etc). Basically, showing a fallacy doesn't do all that much for natural-language discussions (as opposed to mathematical theorems).

Calling out fallacies (especially the RPG-specific ones), as you say, is just a lazy "you're wrong" and frequently involves stretching the other person's argument to fit the mold of that fallacy. And stretching the meaning of the fallacies themselves as well. As well as provoking a certain amount of defensiveness on the other person's part.

I'd much rather talk about argument pathologies--argument styles that tend to lead to bad results or arguments that don't make sense or don't prove what they set out to do. And those pathologies come from much more than just "fallacies".

I see what you're saying, but I still think that, for example, pointing out that somebody is engaging with a straw man version of your argument is valid. But you need to immediately explain what about the argument they're attacking differs from your own and why their attack doesn't address yours.

[MaxWilson]

I see what you're saying, but I still think that, for example, pointing out that somebody is engaging with a straw man version of your argument is valid. But you need to immediately explain what about the argument they're attacking differs from your own and why their attack doesn't address yours.

Well, not necessarily. Sometimes pointing out a straw man or other fallacy is a prelude to setting someone on Ignore instead of continuing to engage with them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I see what you're saying, but I still think that, for example, pointing out that somebody is engaging with a straw man version of your argument is valid. But you need to immediately explain what about the argument they're attacking differs from your own and why their attack doesn't address yours.

I find that I get better results if I don't actually use the "fallacy" label unless I'm wanting to do what MaxWilson says below. Basically, accusing someone of a fallacy tends to act like a hard stop to a conversation too often to be useful.


Well, not necessarily. Sometimes pointing out a straw man or other fallacy is a prelude to setting someone on Ignore instead of continuing to engage with them.

In the case of a straw man, I prefer to use terms like "I think my argument has been misunderstood" and then pointing out the differences. Much less volatile a response.

@MaxWilson--I'm trying not to do that anymore. Because it became too easy for me, personally, to treat unwanted arguments as sources of anger and just ignore the source instead of actually taking them seriously. But it's definitely not an invalid response for extreme cases.

[TheUser]

My issue is that fallacies only prove formal logic arguments invalid.

Categorically false.

Any form of argumentation where you wish to employ logic as the basis for your rationale can employ the use of identifying fallacies in reasoning, no matter how formal or informal.

It is only in formal logic arguments where you are compelled to identify and expunge fallacies.

The fault is still mine however; how silly of me to assume that people would want to develop their stance based on logic and reasoning...

[Unoriginal]

Saying "X is a fallacy", if accurate, is a way of saying "X is not an argument".

For exemple, if someone uses an ad hominem to dismiss a post, then pointing out it's an ad hominem demonstrates how the dismissal is not valid.

[Snowbluff]

RAW exists. There's several books full of written rules.

It's just they all have to filter through our individual interpretations, and some people (including me when I'm backsliding) like to refer to something other than a direct quote of the Rules as Written as RAW. If it's not a quote, it's not RAW. It's interpretation.

This. RAW is often used in discussion because it's a starting place. Everyone has the text and you don't have to make an assumption the rules will be played differently. Once you get a DM and table, there might be changes to some rules that the DM or groups uses to smooth things over or make more sense of the gameworld.