deleted

[wefoij123]

deleted deleted

[Dimers]

So what is the proper way of handling people {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} Does anyone know?

It's not possible to force other people to change their minds. Sometimes in life you encounter people who you just can't convince, no matter how plain the truth, no matter what reasoning you apply. Be stoic, shrug your shoulders, and move on to pursuits more productive than talking to a brick wall.

What do you stand to lose by simply disengaging from a fruitless discussion? It's not like any of us has a responsibility to enlighten the world, after all. And valuing others' approval (beyond the minimum necessary to remain part of a society, a rather low bar IME) is ultimately unhealthy compared to accepting reality as it is. You can be happier by letting go of the struggle.

If these words resonate with you, I suggest looking into Stoic philosophy, Buddhist philosophy (not religion), cognitive behavioral psychology and maybe transactional analysis. They can all help you learn to recognize and avoid what leads you away from a state of satisfaction independent of other people acting sensible.

[icefractal]

Just something to keep in mind -

3.5E has been out for 19 years at this point. It's been complete (as in, no new material coming out) for 14 years. People have had a long time to examine these rules.

At this point, if there's something that's still a matter of debate, it's because there isn't a clear answer that everyone would accept if they saw it.

[redking]

But the stat blocks do. There's a monster that has 3 bonus feats from taint, which means you get a total of 4 bonus feats from taint. 2 from depravity and 2 from corruption.
In addition, every undead stat block in Heroes of Horror do not have bonus feats from taint.

So from this we can extrapolate that at least regarding bonus feats, evil outsiders and undead do not get bonus feats from taint.

But the opposition says stat blocks are completely worthless piece of unliving **** written by a braindead moron who don't understand even the basics and gets everything wrong therefore you are not allowed to use stat blocks for anything.

Now I personally know quite a few stat blocks that got even the most basic thing wrong. So i agree, stat blocks cannot be used to counter rule quotes. When there is a conflict between a stat block and a rule quote, you can't say the stat block is right.

The statblock for the example NPC for the Abjurant Champion is simply wrong.


Caspian LaMont, the 5th level NPC abjurant champion example, has mage armor† († = Already cast) as a listed spell. Mage armor gives a +4 armor bonus to AC. 5th level of abjurant champion gives a +5 bonus to abjuration spells, and mage armor is specifically listed as a spell affected. If the designer intended for mage armor to be affected by abjurant champion's class abilities, then Caspian LaMont should have +9 armor bonus to AC

The funny thing is, I think that the Abjurant Champion abilities were always meant to enhance mage armor, but the designer or editor messed up the writeup of the class. Its discussed here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?637140-Abjurant-champion-quot-mage-armor-quot-makes-me-sad). The point is that statblocks are often full of errors. Figuring out what the intention was in that case is very helpful.

[Gruftzwerg]

@wefoij123
I guess I missed the opportunity, but let me still welcome you to the board. I also like it when more people join rule discussions, since the more people join a discussion, the better the outcome imho.

Since you are new at the boards, let me tell you how it has been for me joining the board.
I thought I would "know" the rules and what is right and wrong in 3.5
And while I am very good rule lawyer in most games I play, it was a shock how much of the rules I seem to have misunderstood, or where the online community had other opinions about.
Long story short:..
3.5 ain't that simple as it seems. There is a major design flaw in 3.5 and that is that the Primary Source Rule (PSR) didn't make it into the core books. It's hidden in the ERRATA...
And that rule handles how rules interact, which one trumps the other or has no permission to change anything. It's the most important rule to handle rule conflicts. And it is not in the original books! It was released years after the original release. And most people didn't even notice em then. And if they noticed the PSR, they didn't get it. Like they didn't get why the FAQ rules "this or that". If you understand the PSR, many of those strange interactions suddenly make sense.
The problem here is to forgot all the wrong stuff that you thought was right till then.

So, without hesitation are you aware of the PSR? Do you know what it does? Just looking at your first example " 1. Losing benefits of Prestige Classes when you no longer meet the prerequisite of the PrC." it seems to me that you aren't aware of the PSR.


Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two... rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.


Let me shorty explain what the PSR does for the example given in "1.":

The PSR creates a rule hierarchy where everything has to obey any "more general rule" unless they make an explicit call out. Everything is structured by things like topic supremacy, book supremacy and such things.

We now have to look up which book handles the topic PRC and has supremacy. It's the DMG that first introduced PRC and their rules. As such, the DMG has book supremacy. If anything does not follow the rules in DMG or tries to alter them, they need to make either:

a) create a more specific situation to make changes for that "niche". (e.g. Power Attack is more specific then a regular melee attack rules and thus may trump the general rules for an Attack.)

or

b) make an explicit call out that it is claiming the topic supremacy to make changes. (the ERRATA has a text that does this; Rules Compendium has a text for this; and IIRC Draconomicon has this text for the topic dragons).

If you should find any rule outside the general rules, it has to fulfill either one of these criteria or they are illegal and don't work.

And that is the chase with the Prestige Class rule presented in the books (complete arcane/warrior and PHBII).
They assume rules that are not presented in the DMG which has topic supremacy for the topic PRC.
None of these statements create a more specific situation. If they would say: "this rules counts for all PRC in this book", they would create a more specific niche where they could change the general rules. But they didn't do that.
Neither has any of these books tried to reclaim topic supremacy over PRC.
They just assume rules that are not presented in the general rules for that topic and thus lack any permission to make changes.
If you get what the PSR does, you should be able to understand that its about source, hierarchy and permission. These rules are written as riddle text into the PSR. And with riddle I mean, it's normal to need about 1-2years until you get a good grasp what the PSR does, why it does it and when it does it.

I'm not saying that you have to be wrong! Don't get me wrong here. From my own story as said, in some topic I would convince the forum that they have been wrong. But I also have to admit that I have been wrong on many occasions. Due to the lack of the PSR in the core books, most of us have played 3.5 for many years wrong. And it is not that easy to fix when you are first exposed to how the human hive-mind in the internet handles the rules, because they are aware of the PSR and have discussed the rules for many years.

Let me say this again, I appreciate that you wanna discuss the rules and share your opinion with us. But realize, that we discussed the rules here over the years more than once, and the chances that you bring "new arguments" is low. I don't say non-existent, since we still are finding new things out about the rules on a frequent base. But I assume 99 of 100 attempts fail. So, to expect that you are right on all topic and we are all wrong has statistically viewed a very low chance.

If you want a good tip how to approach these topic without getting to emotional overheated, just ask. One by One (each topic a separate thread). Most people are very kind here and as long as you are friendly asking, they will tell you all pros and cons to a topic/rule that might be in a gray area. No need to become emotional. I know easier said than done. But we aren't unforgiving here. People have bad days, people overreact, and people learn from it. I had my penalties too here on the forum. We are all humans. Forgive and forget ;)

As final note: If you really wanna discuss any of these topic, I really suggest to make several threads. And imho with some time span between them. You don't wanna join multiple rule discussions, since that will sole lead to overreaction and overheating^^. We are not running away, and we can solve everything more chilled with enough time.

[Biggus]

And that is the chase with the Prestige Class rule presented in the books (complete arcane/warrior and PHBII).
They assume rules that are not presented in the DMG which has topic supremacy for the topic PRC.
None of these statements create a more specific situation. If they would say: "this rules counts for all PRC in this book", they would create a more specific niche where they could change the general rules. But they didn't do that.
Neither has any of these books tried to reclaim topic supremacy over PRC.
They just assume rules that are not presented in the general rules for that topic and thus lack any permission to make changes.
If you get what the PSR does, you should be able to understand that its about source, hierarchy and permission. These rules are written as riddle text into the PSR. And with riddle I mean, it's normal to need about 1-2years until you get a good grasp what the PSR does, why it does it and when it does it.


The primary source rule is problematic, because in many cases it creates a RAW vs RAI conflict if taken literally. RAW, it means that none of the extra rules in splatbooks are valid if they in any way contradict what the core books say, whereas it's very obvious that they're intended to be able to change and expand the core rules. In some cases the splats explicitly say they replace the core rules, but by a strict interpretation of the PSR they can't.

[Gruftzwerg]

The primary source rule is problematic, because in many cases it creates a RAW vs RAI conflict if taken literally. RAW, it means that none of the extra rules in splatbooks are valid if they in any way contradict what the core books say, whereas it's very obvious that they're intended to be able to change and expand the core rules. In some cases the splats explicitly say they replace the core rules, but by a strict interpretation of the PSR they can't.

The RAW vs RAI conflict thrives from the very same problem. The late release of the PSR.
Its not my fault that even half of the 3.5 designer staff wasn't aware of this rule while they have been writing RULE BOOKS...
Do you see the problem here? Imho a notable part of the staff either didn't know or was as clueless as the community was on release of the PSR.

Regarding the spatbooks:
Imho in most chases the PSR does what it should do. And imho in the chase of this PRC example, it is very good that it does what it does. Let me shift your focus on the release dates of the problematic books. Now lock at the release date of 3.5. These splatbooks have been simultaneously produced while the revision was going on. I think that some rule have been changed over and over and have been copied in the wrong form into those splatbooks. Since all later released splatbooks lack any kind of such text and we even have PRC who become dysfunctional under such a ruling, we can argue that RAI in its latest updated form is against such a ruling.
So, the PRS did a very good job here if I may say. If it wouldn't be there, things would be much more messy. To give you a slight example. In the early days of 3.5 people have tried to use spell descriptions to extrapolate general rules out of em. Or they argued "because a monk's unarmed strike can do this, my non-monk can also..:". Thx god we have the PSR. Otherwise 3.5 would be very dark place without it.


______________________

And as always: I never suggest to play RAW and imho nobody plays RAW. We all play a mix of RAW + RAI + homebrew. The question is just, is the person aware of that or is he claiming to play RAW or RAI or whatsoever. RAW is just meant as starting point for rule discussions (and to drive the IRON Chef judges into madness^^). Than we argue what RAI may have been. And finally we end discussing how a balanced approach (maybe different for each table) would be. That's how imho a good rule discussion looks like. And most of the times, I feel we are pretty close to that "ideal" here in the forum.
_____________________
_____________________
(PS: I wanna tease my next showcase build here with a lil riddle: 砂の我愛羅 )

[InvisibleBison]

The primary source rule is not all that useful a tool for interpreting rules disputes, because there's very little guidance given as to what is a primary rule on an issue. It's only really useful when there's a contradiction between a core book and a non-core book, or between text and a table. If there's a dispute between text in two different non-core books, there's no way to apply the primary source rule.

[JNAProductions]

Your reading on Dragon Disciple doesn’t work. What indicates that “Race: non-dragon” is checked only once, but other requirements are checked continually?

Now, RAI is clear-you retain benefits even when you become a half-dragon. But your reading of RAW is illogical-or at a minimum, not internally consistent.

[Darg]

Just realize that reasonable minds can differ and go your separate ways. No one has to agree with policy decisions, but that doesn't make them less mandatory. I mean, the game doesn't prevent me from joining a party of level ones as a 20th level wizard, but the DM has the ultimate authority to allow it. If I disagree with it, I can walk away from the table.

[Crake]

Citing rules endlessly and repeatedly doesn't necessarily win you an argument. Someitmes just a single rule can trump a thousand others, quantity doesn't always win. From what I've seen so far, you're rather fond of citing large quantities of rules and matching them against the people you're debating with, as if your citations cancel each other out one for one, and the person with more citations "wins. That's just not how it works.

Realistically though, almost every topic available for discussion has been discussed already on these forums with regards to 3.5. As someone mentioned earlier, the only topics that are still heatedly debated these days are ones that ultimately have no clearly defined answer, so you need to learn that you're not "right" in these discussions, you merely have an opinion, and people on the other side of the argument aren't "wrong", they just see things differently. You may find it difficult to understand how they can possibly see things that way, you may think it's absurd at times, but ultimately, what does it even matter at the end of the day? You're not playing at their table, and they aren't playing at yours.

This system is far too old to really be debating rules still, the best threads on this forum, in my opinion, are the ones putting the rules into action in fun and awesome ways, in actual games, not theoretical talks of how certain things interact. If you want a level 1 ability to combine with a feat to be able to turn you into a creature that can cast wish without any component costs, and you think that's a healthy and fun thing to have in your game, then go right ahead, nobody's gonna stop you, but like... You don't need to have some esoteric rules combination to allow that. If you're the DM, you can just... DO that.

[Gruftzwerg]

The primary source rule is not all that useful a tool for interpreting rules disputes, because there's very little guidance given as to what is a primary rule on an issue. It's only really useful when there's a contradiction between a core book and a non-core book, or between text and a table. If there's a dispute between text in two different non-core books, there's no way to apply the primary source rule.

I hope you don't feel offended when I kindly ask you to calmly reread the PSR.


Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence.

We have topic precedence! What does that mean? A topic has always a main source (book + chapter), which is normally the first source it was released (unless a later book makes a call out like in the case with Draconomicon).

Lets take a "warlock" as simple example.
Assume you find 2 contradicting rules in Complete Arcane and Complete Mage.
What will the PSR do here for you?

Since "warlocks" have been originally released in Complete Arcane, the main Topic is handled there. No other book has claimed topic supremacy over warlocks. As such, Complete Mage has to obey any general rules presented in Complete Arcane or has to at least create a more specific situation.

The PSR always helps, if you know what it does. And the few times where the PSR doesn't set anything regarding the order, we have a special solution for these moments too. We call it:
"most favorable order"
That happens if the rules presented are really of equal level in the hierarchy (e.g. 2 single non-chain feats competing with each other. The user of the feats may set the order since no rule forces any order.

I know that my "PSR" arguments and jokes can be annoying at times, but it has it reasons as you can see. IMHO it solves almost any situation if applied correctly (this does not mean that the outcome is always balanced! We are still talking about 3.5 here! ^^)

[InvisibleBison]

We have topic precedence! What does that mean? A topic has always a main source (book + chapter), which is normally the first source it was released (unless a later book makes a call out like in the case with Draconomicon).

Yes, the primary source rule says that topic precedence is a thing. However, it does not provide a method of determining when a topic precedence over another. Thus, any assertion that one topic takes precedence over another is not RAW but rather an interpretation of the text, and as always no one is under any obligation to accept another person's interpretation.


Lets take a "warlock" as simple example.
Assume you find 2 contradicting rules in Complete Arcane and Complete Mage.
What will the PSR do here for you?

The PSR can't do anything for you here, since it doesn't define either of these books to be the primary source for warlocks.


Since "warlocks" have been originally released in Complete Arcane, the main Topic is handled there.

That's a perfectly valid interpretation of the text; however, it is not written anywhere in the rules that it is the case, so it's not RAW. It's a ruling, which is a form of house rule.


No other book has claimed topic supremacy over warlocks. As such, Complete Mage has to obey any general rules presented in Complete Arcane or has to at least create a more specific situation.

Complete Arcane hasn't claimed topic supremacy over warlocks, either.


The PSR always helps, if you know what it does.

The PSR is a useful tool for interpreting the text and resolving ambiguous situations. However, it's of little use in online RAW arguments because interpreting the text is not RAW and no one is under any obligation to accept anyone else's interpretation.

[Yahzi Coyote]

The way I handle people who just dismiss everything and says they're right with 0 rule support makes me look like a stark raving lunatic that screams unintelligibly.
The length of this post kind of makes the same statement. Just so you know.

Why does it matter? What are you trying to achieve? The DM gets to set the rules for his table. The game is unplayable as written, so every DM sets some rules. This is just one of them.

You can say you think it's a good idea to interpret it one way, you can interpret it that way at your table, but RAW is not an instantiation of physics. There's no reason to think that a single, correct interpretation even exists.

[King of Nowhere]

and even when the RAW is clear, there is the old RAW vs RAI debate, and then there is houseruling - which should not be included in rules debates, but the game is basically unplayable without some houseruling, and virtually every table does it - and there is dm adjudication of corner cases. and we have plenty of threads poking fun at how following the strict letter of raw gives ridiculous results all the time.

me, I'm surprised people would even care to deep dive into books to adjudicate a dispute, rather than going with what makes more sense for the campaign world as it has been established.
why should I take those books as authority? the people who wrote them probably have less d&d experience than me, and they were not writing for my specific situation.

[Telonius]

Jerks exist. Ignore them, mess with them, leave, or force them to leave, depending on the situation.

[redking]

While the writers of D&D products made many mistakes/errors in their descriptions, usually their mistake was just assuming good faith on behalf of the reader. Most of the stuff we talk about here won't survive contact with DM that hasn't been lobotomized. An example is a previous thread the OP in which his player wanted to use "100gp worth" of conjured scalpels to summon a familiar.

The ability calls for "magical materials" but does not specify these materials. In this case the writers assumed good faith from the reader. If good faith isn't available, the DM needs to step in.

[Rleonardh]

Who is right?
Very very simple.
Who is the dm? That one is 100% right all the time as it's his game.

Than follow rule#0 rule of cool whatever makes your game fun for all.

[icefractal]

TBF, I can understand the increased satisfaction from doing something by the RAW, as opposed to homebrew or fiat. Building a working machine, even a simple one, is a different type of fun than making a sculpture or drawing of a machine.

But even then, different people have different specifics on what makes that fun. For example, personally I feel like "gentlemen's agreements" interfere with the objective invention feel just as much as homebrew or GM fudging does. So if something is ambiguous, I'm going to rule it in the direction that keeps the game playable without those, and if necessary a houserule is also a better option.

Incidentally, house-rules don't have to be in the style of standard rules. A house-rule like: "This thing that gives you unlimited free minions? You can only get two minions at once from it." is totally fine, because at that point it is a rule rather than an "agreement", and one that can be applied to NPCs as well, because I don't like the "the PCs are the only ones who can use even obvious optimizations" approach.

But really that's only my preference as a player - something I find more satisfying for the characters I make myself, but if other people want to use custom homebrew that's fine with me. As a GM, I mainly care about "is this viable for the game?" and source (1PP, 3PP, homebrew) is less important than that.

[Jay R]

Am I in the wrong for claiming the interpretation that creates the least amount of conflict is the correct RAW?

That question is no longer relevant to the situation. The relevant question right now is not which interpretation is correct; it's what to do when there is no possible agreement about what interpretation is correct.

As you have just documented, there is not always going to be agreement, even after long, detailed discussion. We are now considering what to do when there is no agreement.

In baseball, the umpire is not always correct. But the umpire's call is the final word anyway. Otherwise, there would be no way to continue the game. Here is the rule as written:


(a) Any umpire’s decision which involves judgment, such as, but not limited to, whether a batted ball is fair or foul, whether a pitch is a strike or a ball, or whether a runner is safe or out, is final. No player, manager, coach or substitute shall object to any such judgment decisions.
(b) If there is reasonable doubt that any umpire’s decision may be in conflict with the rules, the manager may appeal the decision and ask that a correct ruling be made. Such appeal shall be made only to the umpire who made the protested decision.
(c) If a decision is appealed, the umpire making the decision may ask another umpire for information before making a final decision. No umpire shall criticize, seek to reverse or interfere with another umpire’s decision unless asked to do so by the umpire making it.


That is the rule as written -- the umpire makes the final decision. You can appeal, but only to the same umpire. And sometimes the umpire is flat wrong; sometimes he or she calls the pitch a strike when it was really a ball. Even if the umpire is wrong, we must all accept the ruling, or the pitcher can't throw the next pitch. Similarly, when the ball and the runner reach the base at almost exactly the same time, we may never agree if the runner was safe or out. But we must accept the umpire's call anyway, or the next batter can't come up to bat -- not until we all know who's on base, and how many outs there are.

Similarly, in D&D, the rules as written say that the DM makes the final call.

D&D 3.5 DMG, p. 6: "Good players will always realize that you have ultimate authority over the game mechanics, even superseding something in a rulebook."

In short, the rules as written provide a clear, unambiguous way to reach a final ruling when there is unsolvable disagreement.

And just as in baseball, the game cannot continue unless all players agree to accept that there is a final authority, and that they will accept that authority's word as final.


So the question I'm posing here is, how do you handle people who say that the correct pure Rules As Written interpretation is one that has avoidable conflict? What's the correct way of engaging such a person in a "discussion"? Additional rule quotes will not persuade this person. I know because I tried.

This is a perfect example of why there must be a final authority. Sometimes you cannot persuade the other person. Either the game stops at that point, or somehow we need an answer that everyone will accept, without believing that it is correct.

How do I handle that situation?
A. I choose the players I invite to my game carefully, and only after I know them well.
B. I try to build a reputation for fair dealing and careful judgment, so people will want to play with me as DM even though they know I'm not perfect and will sometimes be wrong.
C. I do my best to interpret the rules fairly and honestly, including going back after a game with such a situation, digging into the rules further, and trying to find all the data I can.

I recently left a game (in the middle of a session) because of a personal situation with another player that the DM, for reasons I understood, simply could not deal with. Was I right? Was the other player right? Obviously, I believe my position was reasonable, but I'm sure he thought his position was reasonable, too. Ultimately, I don't know. I just know that if the DM cannot fix it, then it cannot be fixed.

[Analytica]

The way I handle people who just dismiss everything and says they're right with 0 rule support makes me look like a stark raving lunatic that screams unintelligibly. So I figured I should change my approach so I don't look like a stark raving lunatic that screams unintelligibly.


I want to say, first, that I agree with your reasoning on these matters as you present them in this post. I think in this that you are correct.

Second, as others say - people argue and believe things about these matters for really strange reasons, often perhaps because they want to be right about something others are wrong over, even (especially) when it is something that in practice and wider context really is completely irrelevant. Accordingly, there is no point in arguing with them. They won't change their mind, but you also would not gain anything actually useful from changing their mind.

My advice is to just ignore people who want to argue cheesy, myopic interpretations about rules from a game long no longer produced. Those arguments have no meaningful or useful impact. And as you have outlined? You can make a pretty good call on what the game designers would say if you were playing at their table, versus what they would just shoot down.

[Gruftzwerg]

Yes, the primary source rule says that topic precedence is a thing. However, it does not provide a method of determining when a topic precedence over another. Thus, any assertion that one topic takes precedence over another is not RAW but rather an interpretation of the text, and as always no one is under any obligation to accept another person's interpretation.
I've said that rule "Specific Trumps General" is written as a riddle into the PSR.
Can you show/explain to me where the expression (Specific Tr. Ge.) comes from? Otherwise I would suggest you to stop using it and see how far you come!?^^
Let me try to unfold the riddle here again:

1. As explained in my previous post, "topic" is nowhere limited in the PSR.
2. As such anything that creates either a totally new topic/situation (general source) or a more specific topic/situation (more specific) is a valid topic.
This enforces the "everything has to follow the general rules" and the "Specific Trumps General" exception.
Just because "topic" lacks any further definition, "common sense" kicks in and is dictating what a "topic" mechanically is.
Note that you may not imply any limitations that aren't RAW. Thus we have to accept what a unlimited interpratation of "topic" enforces by common sense as described above. Anything new or more specific creates its own topic where it takes precedence. This allows for general rules for a new topic, while at the same time allowing to create more specific topics that may trump the previous general rules.

A simple example:
General Attack Rules > Power Attack > Shock Trooper
The General Attack Rules have created a new topic and thus represent the general rules here. Power Attack creates a more specific niche and thus represents his own topic (thus may trump the general attack rules). Shock Trooper creates a even more specific situation (topic) and thus may trump all rules set before in this "chain".
You can view any situation with multiple rules interacting as a "chain" like I visualized it with the example.




The PSR can't do anything for you here, since it doesn't define either of these books to be the primary source for warlocks.
If you could follow my explanation, you should know the answer by now. Complete Arcane has created a new topic. Thus, as long as nothing else claims supremacy over this topic, it holds the rights itself. The warlocks rules presented here are the general rules.


If you dislike my interpretation, I would kindly request (no offense here) your interpretation of "topic precedence" and where do you think that the rule for "Specific Trumps General" is (or don't you use this as tool?)?


and even when the RAW is clear, there is the old RAW vs RAI debate, and then there is houseruling - which should not be included in rules debates, but the game is basically unplayable without some houseruling, and virtually every table does it - and there is dm adjudication of corner cases. and we have plenty of threads poking fun at how following the strict letter of raw gives ridiculous results all the time.

me, I'm surprised people would even care to deep dive into books to adjudicate a dispute, rather than going with what makes more sense for the campaign world as it has been established.
why should I take those books as authority? the people who wrote them probably have less d&d experience than me, and they were not writing for my specific situation.

The reason lies in simple forum logic.

Ask yourself the following question:
Do you want each and any request/question in the forum be answered with: "Ask your DM."?
I guess not. So, we have to start at some point to give advices. And imho there is sole one efficient approach:

1: RAW
Because all we need is the text and our forum hivemind to decipher the rule text by RAW. While this can be sometimes hard and take some time, most of the time it is still the fastest solution. And in most chases it boils down to a single valid interpretation.
Sometimes something ain't defined precise enough that it leaves 2 possible interpretations, but these cases are very rare.

2: RAI
If RAW fails to provide a satisfying answer, we look for RAI solutions. This involves 2 things. Searching the internet for designer quotes (FAQ, Rules of the Game archive, Sage Advice, Customer Care mails, whatsoever..) and speculating about the intentions. Sometimes this leads to a single solution. But often we lack any quotes and need to speculate about the intentions and that involves speculation about the intended power lvl of that rule/ability. So it can be relatively time consuming.

3: Houserule suggestions:
Here we have no common ground at all. Each table and imho even each campaign has its own needs and thus should be handled individually. Thus you can't give an answer that is for everybody. You need to know the group (system mastery, PC optimization and Tier lvl, houserules...) to give a somewhat useful answer for each group. Very time consuming since it needs to be individually tailored for each group.

As said, imho it's just the logical approach: RAW > RAI > Houserules
You opinion may differ. Unless the OP of a thread does explicitly ask for RAI or houserule solutions its imho the most convenient starting point here.

[InvisibleBison]

I've said that rule "Specific Trumps General" is written as a riddle into the PSR.

Yes, but you're wrong. The PSR does not establish that specific trumps general (as evidenced by the fact that it doesn't say any such thing). That rule is laid out on page 5 of the Rules Compendium.


1. As explained in my previous post, "topic" is nowhere limited in the PSR.
2. As such anything that creates either a totally new topic/situation (general source) or a more specific topic/situation (more specific) is a valid topic.

I disagree. The PSR does not provide any method for determining what constitutes a topic or how to determine whether something is a new topic or an extension of an existing topic. Thus, whenever you decide that something is or is not a new topic you are making a house rule, not following RAW. Which is fine when you're actually playing D&D - RAW is a social construct that exists to facilitate internet discussions; it's not a viable method for actually running a game. But given that we're having a discussion on the internet, you have to be clear about what RAW actually says and when you're using house rules.


Note that you may not imply any limitations that aren't RAW. Thus we have to accept what a unlimited interpratation of "topic" enforces by common sense as described above.

No, when RAW doesn't address a topic then we simply don't have a RAW approach to the topic. You can't simply choose an interpretation you like and declare it to be RAW. (Note also that "you may not imply any limitations that aren't RAW" means fighters can cast wish at will, because the text never says they can't).


If you could follow my explanation, you should know the answer by now. Complete Arcane has created a new topic. Thus, as long as nothing else claims supremacy over this topic, it holds the rights itself. The warlocks rules presented here are the general rules.

Why should warlocks be a new topic, and not an extension of the topic of base classes, for which the PSR explicitly says the primary source is the PHB? There's no actual textual reason; it's just that if we rule that way new books can't add new base classes, since the PHB says that there are only eleven of them. This is an example of how you have to ignore RAW to have a functional game, not an example of how hyper-precise parsing of RAW lets you figure out how the game actually works.

[Jay R]

Stop looking for the tool or argument or interpretation that will always convince people. It doesn't exist.

There will always be people that you just cannot convince in any way. Always. In politics, in religion, at work, in your hobbies, in sports, and yes, in role-playing games, there will always be people that you will never convince.

When that happens, don't get mad, don't rave, don't look for a new argument.

Look for a solution to a permanent disagreement – a way to continue without agreeing.

In D&D, it's the fact that there is a final authority – the DM.

Always listen, consider the other person's point of view, put out your point of view (quietly and respectfully) as strongly as you can. If you reach an agreement, great!

But sometimes you just won't. Have the DM make a ruling, and then resume play.

And when the DM disagrees with you, shrug and move on. You aren't here to win arguments. You are here to play D&D.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Jay R
You aren't here to win arguments. You are here to play D&D.

All of Jay's post is worth taking to heart, but especially this.

Some people get so focused on "winning" a conversation they lose sight of what it should be about. And in this context, ultimately it should be about having fun with the game. That doesn't mean making sure everyone agrees with you on every last point, because they never will. As Jay says, it's about finding a way to move past the little quibbles and enjoy everything your group does agree on, which is probably most of the game.

[Crake]

Why should warlocks be a new topic, and not an extension of the topic of base classes, for which the PSR explicitly says the primary source is the PHB? There's no actual textual reason; it's just that if we rule that way new books can't add new base classes, since the PHB says that there are only eleven of them. This is an example of how you have to ignore RAW to have a functional game, not an example of how hyper-precise parsing of RAW lets you figure out how the game actually works.

Except that general class mechanics vs warlock specific class mechanics is an example of specific over general. The PHB is the primary source for general class mechanics and how they work, while CA is the primary source on warlocks and how THEY work specifically. In the event the warlock class clashed with the phb specifically for warlocks, then CA would win out, but in the case that CA tried to override a general rule for all classes, then the PHB would win out. Fairly straightforward I think?

[icefractal]

But if "specific trumps general" is from the RC, is it even allowed to apply to things in the PHB? :smallamused: That's my issue with the PSR - a rule which says later sources aren't allowed to change anything established in earlier ones is fundamentally a flawed design; not every mistake should be engraved immutably.

Heck, even MtG, which has more reasons to keep cards sacrosanct (people pay significant amounts of money for rare cards) doesn't follow something like the PSR. If it did, a "half Black Lotus, half Fireball" deck would still be legal.

That said, while it doesn't help the quest for ultimate RAW-ness, for practical purposes neither the PSR or any replacement is really needed any longer, now that new content isn't coming out. There are a finite number of conflicts in the published material, and you can just decide which way to resolve them - there's no need to establish whether a hypothetical future book could change how Improved Initiative works, because no such book is coming.

[Gruftzwerg]

Yes, but you're wrong. The PSR does not establish that specific trumps general (as evidenced by the fact that it doesn't say any such thing). That rule is laid out on page 5 of the Rules Compendium.

Excuse me, but it's just natural for the RC to include the changes from the ERRATA (PSR) that had been released in the meanwhile. I mean, this was the purpose, to gather (supposed) all rule updates and to fit em into the RC. "Specific Trumps General" was established by the PSR way before RC was released.



I disagree. The PSR does not provide any method for determining what constitutes a topic or how to determine whether something is a new topic or an extension of an existing topic. Thus, whenever you decide that something is or is not a new topic you are making a house rule, not following RAW. Which is fine when you're actually playing D&D - RAW is a social construct that exists to facilitate internet discussions; it's not a viable method for actually running a game. But given that we're having a discussion on the internet, you have to be clear about what RAW actually says and when you're using house rules.



No, when RAW doesn't address a topic then we simply don't have a RAW approach to the topic. You can't simply choose an interpretation you like and declare it to be RAW. (Note also that "you may not imply any limitations that aren't RAW" means fighters can cast wish at will, because the text never says they can't).
RAW means to take the full extend of the presented text. And if A WORD has no special 3.5 definition, we fall back to general English definition. And without any limitation, any "new or more specific situation/thing" is a new topic. That's how you can use "topic" in real life if no limitation (!) is attached to it. You are not allowed to set limitations, since that would be altering the rule text by reading/using limitations that are not written into the rule text.





Why should warlocks be a new topic, and not an extension of the topic of base classes, for which the PSR explicitly says the primary source is the PHB? There's no actual textual reason; it's just that if we rule that way new books can't add new base classes, since the PHB says that there are only eleven of them. This is an example of how you have to ignore RAW to have a functional game, not an example of how hyper-precise parsing of RAW lets you figure out how the game actually works.
It's both. It depends what you are comparing to each other. The PSR establishes a rule hierarchy, but it can only do this by comparing 2 things at a time. Even if it has to handle multiple rules. That is what I meant with a "rule chain".

The PHB has created the topic "class" and thus is the primary source for classes and how to read "class descriptions".
While the general rules for classes overall can be found in the PHB, the rules for each specific class can be found in the book they have been printed in (who would have thought that^^).
Since warlock was printed in Complete Arcane, it holds supremacy over the topic "warlock" (!not "classes"!).
It still obeys the general rules for "classes" presented in the PHB.

We are talking about 2 different topics here, where one is a subtopic of the other (more specific). But if you look at the subtopic itself for a rule comprehension, they can become general rules. E.g. the Hellfire Warlock relies on the Warlock class. Thus anything mentioned in the Warlock description is general now and Hellfire Warlock is specific. At the same time Hellfire Warlock still has to obey the general "class" rules in the PHB and the general "prc-rules" found in the DMG. This is what I said with that while multiple rules might interact, that the PSR always can always only compare 2 at the same time, slowly giving everything its right order in the "rule chain/hierarchy".






But if "specific trumps general" is from the RC, is it even allowed to apply to things in the PHB? :smallamused: That's my issue with the PSR - a rule which says later sources aren't allowed to change anything established in earlier ones is fundamentally a flawed design; not every mistake should be engraved immutably.

Heck, even MtG, which has more reasons to keep cards sacrosanct (people pay significant amounts of money for rare cards) doesn't follow something like the PSR. If it did, a "half Black Lotus, half Fireball" deck would still be legal.

That said, while it doesn't help the quest for ultimate RAW-ness, for practical purposes neither the PSR or any replacement is really needed any longer, now that new content isn't coming out. There are a finite number of conflicts in the published material, and you can just decide which way to resolve them - there's no need to establish whether a hypothetical future book could change how Improved Initiative works, because no such book is coming.

RC, ERRATA & Draconomicon make special call outs that they are claiming supremacy over something. In the case of RC and ERRATA they even explicitly state the clear intention to change rules!
This gives them the permission to supersede rules that have already been printed (like the PHB in our case).

And be assured that the PSR is everywhere. MTG is based on the same logic even if they "don't have a PSR"..^^
You have general rules (rule book) and have specific cases (cards) who may trump em (Specific trumps general).
Each new "season" adds new abilities with their own rule subset. These are more specific than the general rules presented in the main game...
You see the pattern?
Laws work on the same base. They also have topic (human rights, traffic laws, drug laws..) and hierarchies (international rules, national rules, ..).
All of these make use of "specifically defined keywords" which may trump the general English definition..
And if something ain't defined, we fall back to general English definition.
It is always the same pattern.

[RexDart]

Stop looking for the tool or argument or interpretation that will always convince people. It doesn't exist.

There will always be people that you just cannot convince in any way. Always. In politics, in religion, at work, in your hobbies, in sports, and yes, in role-playing games, there will always be people that you will never convince.

When that happens, don't get mad, don't rave, don't look for a new argument.

Look for a solution to a permanent disagreement – a way to continue without agreeing.

In D&D, it's the fact that there is a final authority – the DM.

Always listen, consider the other person's point of view, put out your point of view (quietly and respectfully) as strongly as you can. If you reach an agreement, great!

But sometimes you just won't. Have the DM make a ruling, and then resume play.

And when the DM disagrees with you, shrug and move on. You aren't here to win arguments. You are here to play D&D.

I'm a lawyer by training, so I tend to look at this from a legal perspective:

There are statutes (the official rule books) that define D&D's rules. Conflicts in rule interpretation are handled by a judge at the district court level (the DM.) Once upon a time, there was a possibility of appeal to a higher authority, the Supreme Court, which would issue official rulings via errata, etc. The "legislature" might even take note of the problem and write a new statute that says one side or the other is correct (or neither, perhaps enacting a completely different approach to the situation.)

Even 20 years ago, people couldn't be sure a new rule book would settle the situation or that the Supreme Court would issue one of their rather infrequent rulings, so as a practical it was up to the district court, where the local judge/DM would have to make a ruling that was binding only for his district (table), but not others.

The problem is, in 2022, there's no "higher court" or legislature to appeal to at all, because D&D version 3.5 is no longer a going concern. So, as always, it's ultimately up to the DM.

[Rleonardh]

Problem is this

Raw is up to per dm interpretation
Rai is what we think author wanted or told by them.

The dm unfortunately is the only one in that group is the law. Why homebrew laws spells feats modified prcs whatever is allowed. Otherwise the author would say you can't change jack unless we tell you to.

Than it goes back to raw and rai.

It's a neverending loop.

[Quertus]

I’m… guessing that the context here, OP, is…
You are the GM
You have claimed to be running a “strictly RAW” game
The other party in this debate is a player in your game
That player and you disagree about what “RAW” actually says.


In that context, yes, this is a very important discussion / set of questions / what have you.

In that context, first off, I think you should appreciate that you actually have an intelligent player, one who can articulate their reasoning, rather than someone who will “just dismiss everything and says they're right with 0 rule support”.

(Yeah, they don’t provide rules quotes. Not everyone operates that way. I for one do not. But I feel your pain, interacting with someone who has different debate criteria. Just focus on the good, that, unlike many, they actually have a brain in their head, and can formulate reasonable positions.)

At a glance, I think that you’re very good at coming up with “Rules as Intended”. But that’s not quite the same as RAW.

At a glance, neither of you come off as clueless.

At a glance, I think that there’s a few things I’d straight up disagree with (like your belief / faith in WotC sample characters etc, or their complete dismissal of… but that’s too big a can of worms for this first pass).

But the other big thing I wanted to say was, there’s “this is obviously RAW, anyone who believes otherwise has failed logic / English / programming / legalese”, and then there’s “X and Y could both be argued to be RAW, due to ambiguous wording that greater than 0% of reasonable people agree could be read multiple ways, and thus Rules as Interpreted is required”.

(So, if you claimed that my above paragraphs supported purple donuts 🍩 as the best food, I’d say you failed at English. But there’s probably several valid interpretations of the words that I said. Sometimes, Interpretation is required.)

Thus, also keep in mind that it’s possible that, at times, RAW might be a fiction; at times, what is written will actually be a matter of interpretation.

That may help you approach this disagreement with less :smallfurious:

[Rleonardh]

Right you said lemon donuts are best 😂