TRAW vs PRAW - a new distinction

[Particle_Man]

From another thread discussing whether Vow of Poverty means you can’t open doors or whether the capstone of dragon disciple means you lose all dragon disciple abilities.

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?649141-Feats-amp-Abilities-That-Actively-Make-You-Worse

(Cribbed from post 83)


I want to carve out a third category that distinguishes RAW on a theoretical interpretation that no games actually use, RAW that people actually universally use, and house rules (which I hold to be less universal).

Here goes. Hope people find the distinction useful.

Split RAW into two types:

a) Theorectical-RAW (TRAW): The impractical rulings that say that VoP people cannot open doors.

b) Practical-RAW (PRAW): How everyone who uses VoP will actually play and DM it, without going for house rules.

It is a misnomer to call PRAW a house rule if TRAW will be rejected in every house that plays with the feat. In actual games, people with VoP can open doors. Tournament games, if they still existed for 3.5, would allow VoP characters to open doors. A person that tried a TRAW argument to say "actually they can't open doors" would be flat out rejected in an actual game.

This is not like "In my games, halflings have darkvision" as a house rule, which some tables might go for (perhaps for setting based reasons, perhaps because the DM thinks halflings should be able to see in the dark because reasons).

At best, it edges close to "We don't use racial favoured classes" only moreso, since I have actually encountered the favoured class rule used in the wild, and could see tournament games using that. The rule might be disliked, but games can be played using it.

"Can't open doors" is a non-starter. It is not real thing. It is at best TRAW, but not PRAW.

"Can open doors" is PRAW and is not a house rule, because games have doors and characters open them.

Similarly, games with dragon disciples allow characters to get to level 10 in the class without losing their dragon disciple class abilities. There are no actual games where a DM and players have it otherwise. Thus PRAW they keep their abilities even if TRAW they do not.

The TRAW/PRAW distinction should not be too foreign, as it is closely aligned to the distinction between TO and PO ideas about optimization.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Now I want to know what's the difference between your PRAW and "RAI". Both are just reinterpretations of the rules so that they work.

[loky1109]

We need more letters.

UPD:

Now I want to know what's the difference between your PRAW and "RAI". Both are just reinterpretations of the rules so that they work.

I think RAI can used or not used in game depends on table and DM. PRAW is always or almost always used.

For example, I can imagine real games with both DWK is or isn't true dragon assumptions (and we even can argue what interpretation is RAI). But I can't imagine real game with VoP can't use doors.

[Troacctid]

It sounds like you just invented a new way to say "dysfunctional RAW," a term that we've had for a very long time.

Neither of your examples are RAW, by the way. Environmental features aren't possessions and the dragon disciple capstone doesn't break its prerequisite. Those readings simply aren't supported by the text.

[Particle_Man]

I will add as a caveat: If someone starts up a game (a one shot where people with vow of poverty can’t use doors, a longer campaign where dragon disciples lose their dragon disciple abilities at class level 10) with the sole or main objective to disprove this thread (like specifically a “checkmate, Particle_Man! Take that!” motive), it doesn’t count as a counter-example.

[Maat Mons]

What if I start the Absurdist RAW Campaign because I think it would be funny, and you've put the idea in my head?

[Kurald Galain]

That's hardly new.

TRAW is RAW as we've seen in those "look how ridiculous the rules are" (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?641090-Hilarious-things-you-ve-found-in-RAW) threads we've been having for years.

PRAW is what most people would call RAI.

This thread needs a DRAW or a BRAWl or a PRAWn now.

[Particle_Man]

We need more letters.

UPD:


I think RAI can used or not used in game depends on table and DM. PRAW is always or almost always used.

For example, I can imagine real games with both DWK is or isn't true dragon assumptions (and we even can argue what interpretation is RAI). But I can't imagine real game with VoP can't use doors.

I like this distinction between RAI and PRAW!

[H_H_F_F]

I din't think that PRAW is a useful definition. If it's not the rule as written, than it's also not "practically" the rule as written.

I think in the end you're just talking about very strong cases for RAI. In the end, we can't know RAI for sure, and it's a philosophically difficult subject, death of the author and all. Sometimes, even RAI that seems pretty obvious will steer up arguements, or be considered irrelevant.

But sometimes, we practically know RAI, and it obviously makes more sense. The most obvious example to me is tables with wrong numbers - say, typowhip, or vigilante spells per day. There are no real tables in which these will be used as written, and the fix will always be the same, because intent is made obvious by precedent, and by us practically knowing exactly what went wrong (typo).

So, no tables in the world uses vigilante as written - but that fact doesn't change how it was written. It's still just RAI, just an edge case of it being both very obvious and much better for the game.

[loky1109]

I din't think that PRAW is a useful definition. If it's not the rule as written, than it's also not "practically" the rule as written.

I think in the end you're just talking about very strong cases for RAI. In the end, we can't know RAI for sure, and it's a philosophically difficult subject, death of the author and all. Sometimes, even RAI that seems pretty obvious will steer up arguements, or be considered irrelevant.

But sometimes, we practically know RAI, and it obviously makes more sense. The most obvious example to me is tables with wrong numbers - say, typowhip, or vigilante spells per day. There are no real tables in which these will be used as written, and the fix will always be the same, because intent is made obvious by precedent, and by us practically knowing exactly what went wrong (typo).

So, no tables in the world uses vigilante as written - but that fact doesn't change how it was written. It's still just RAI, just an edge case of it being both very obvious and much better for the game.

There are examples of ambiguous RAW, where both (or more) accurately RAW interpretations are mutually exclusive.

[redking]

In a handful of cases, the RAW is just badly written. But in the vast majority of cases, the reader is engaging in cognitive bias and deliberately ignoring context, often even context given in the very same sentence.

I still find your formulation of TRAW vs PRAW helpful, however, because people on this forum often propose exploits that cannot be accepted in a real life game, where there are other players and a DM there to object and shoot it down. Therefore, the advice is useless, or even worse, because they set up the forum dwellers taking the advice on the path to confrontation and bad feelings all around when attempted at a table.

These exploits always require metagaming. Player Characters are not supposed to know "the rules". Player characters do not realize that they are characters in a D&D game. They are supposed to be role played as living beings within the world. They don't know any rules to exploit.

[lylsyly]

TRAW = a TO builders interpretation of what RAW means, usually involving their own interpretation of what the Primary Source Rule means.

PRAW = probably what most people who think the only way to play the game is by the rules exactly as written (Vop can't open doors).

RAI = probably the most played because most folks have the sense to realize the somewhat badly written, often poorly edited, and with little coordination between books even within the same edition (and this goes back to TSR) needs at least a little common sense/plain english interpretaion (now my VoP character can use a toilet).

But there are also some other wouldn't to consider:

FAQ = is it RAW or not? Our table's opinion is that if the question was answered by the writer of the material in question then Yes! Answered by an editor or another then No! Of course this is just our opinion.

House Rules = This is what works at your table, whether you are the only DM or like our table it is a requirement of joining the group that you must run at least a 3-12 when its your turn. We each have some litte quirks when we DM but but if I posted our common table rules that a lot of folks here would either try to tell us we can't do that or that they wouldn't play at our table.

I just got the other six to read this whole thread and they are watching me type my response. Now it's time for our Sunday session.

Good Luck, Game On & Game Hard!!!

[H_H_F_F]

There are examples of ambiguous RAW, where both (or more) accurately RAW interpretations are mutually exclusive.

Sure, and arguments as to the correct interpretation of RAW (or the validity of multiple) will always happen. But the examples given in the OP (and the following examples I gave in my posts) aren't that. They're just houserules made in accordance with a very strong case for what RAI is, in cases where RAW is nonsensical. That doesn't make them RAW.

****

As an aside, we can also imagine very clear cut cases where both RAW and RAI would be universally considered nonsensical at every table. That does't change them being what they are. Just imagine a case where a writer manages to slip through the editing a rule saying that "my b**** of an ex wife, Samantha, isn't allowed to play D&D."

Both RAW and RAI, poor Samantha isn't allowed to play D&D - but no table imaginable would abide by that rule. That doesn't make "Samantha can play" RAW, PRAW, RAI or PRAI. It's still a houserule, and it still directly contradicts all of those.

It's just like to some (most) people, the rules for multiclass penalties are just stupid, unnecessary, and out of the picture. They're still RAW, RAI, and functional, they're just bad rules.

A houserule is a houserule. Being sensible doesn't make it RAW, being common doesn't make it RAW, even being completely universal and the only way to avoid dysfunction that would ruin every game doesn't make it RAW.

The only reason to call it PRAW is if you want to use "RAW" as a seal of approval given to good rules, instead of as a descriptor. But - Not being RAW isn't a bad thing, not by itself.

RAW is a useful descriptor for discussion, and it's generally useful as the "assumed rules unless otherwise noted" of a table. That's all it is.

[Particle_Man]

I think the trouble is, first, that some people use TRAW as a means of shutting down discussion, by saying something like "well we can't all agree on PRAW (because it is really RAI) but we can all agree on TRAW so that is all we can talk about". This is not everyone, but there are some people that make this rhetorical move.

More relevantly, there are some people that want to distinguish practical advice that is RAW (PRAW) from non-practical advice that is RAW (TRAW).

If I am playing a game I would not mind hearing "watch out for taking toughness as a feat, there are better ones" because that could conceivably be useful to me. I would not mind hearing "oh remember your jump skill increases when your land movement rate does" as that might be useful to me in some cases, and I might not have known about it.

But hearing "Oh and if you take VoP you can't use doors" is of no practical benefit to me. It is not something that would actually come up in a game. It is not a thing, in practical terms.

Even if you think that TRAW is the only RAW, the only real options that a TRAW person could suggest upon saying that VoP means you can't use doors is either: a) Never use VoP or b) Saying VoP should allow someone to use doors. Since presumably people in games that want to use VoP will reject option a, and since option b is obvious, there is no practical benefit to even mentioning the TRAW version (there may be a theoretical benefit for discussions, but there is no practical benefit to people actually playing the game).

That is where PRAW comes in. One doesn't need to infer something about RAI, nor does one need to have a discussion about possible differences of opinion about RAI, nor does one even need to say "Well we can never really know RAI so everything is a house rule". Instead, we say "Ok, this is what practically has to be the case as a background condition if we are to have a game using VoP (or Dragon Disciples) at all".

Thus I think there is room to carve out space for PRAW separate from RAI, separate from house rules, and separate from TRAW.

I know that there is a place for theoretical discussions, but we are also having theoretical discussions about a game that is still played. For the latter people, TRAW is far less useful than PRAW. And while there is a place for TRAW, there is also a separate place for PRAW.

[Particle_Man]

What if I start the Absurdist RAW Campaign because I think it would be funny, and you've put the idea in my head?

Sadly that would also not count as a counter-example. :smallbiggrin:

[Kurald Galain]

What if I start the Absurdist RAW Campaign because I think it would be funny, and you've put the idea in my head?

I would recommend reading the Paranoia and Toon RPGs, as they essentially run on "rules" like that :smallbiggrin:

[Biggus]

Split RAW into two types:

a) Theorectical-RAW (TRAW): The impractical rulings that say that VoP people cannot open doors.

b) Practical-RAW (PRAW): How everyone who uses VoP will actually play and DM it, without going for house rules.

It is a misnomer to call PRAW a house rule if TRAW will be rejected in every house that plays with the feat. In actual games, people with VoP can open doors. Tournament games, if they still existed for 3.5, would allow VoP characters to open doors. A person that tried a TRAW argument to say "actually they can't open doors" would be flat out rejected in an actual game.


Not sure how much actual use this distinction is likely to see, but I very much agree with the point you're making. I'd love to see an end to the practice of ignoring very obvious errors which basically everybody does in an actual game referred to as "houseruling". It may be true in theory, but in practice it's a misleading description.


But in the vast majority of cases, the reader is engaging in cognitive bias and deliberately ignoring context, often even context given in the very same sentence.


Word. Ignoring context is one of the most common rules-interpretation errors I see on RPG websites. You can't just take a single phrase or sentence out of context and claim it as RAW, that's not how language works. "I slayed them tonight" is totally different to "I slayed them tonight, best night of stand-up comedy I've ever done".

[Darg]

TRAW: any spell with the sequence of letters C U R E in the name is a cure spell.

PRAW: any spell with the word "cure" in the name is a cure spell and must be part of the spell chain based on cure light wounds.

Is there a distinction? The PRAW in the above examples is actual RAW while the TRAW is literally bias and ignoring what is written.

VoP on the otherhand is simply that the rules can be read in a multitude of different ways with all of them being RAW. There are two different meanings of "material" as an adjective. One which prevents you from opening doors and the other which lets you function normally. Both are 100% RAW. Only one is RAW and RAI at the same time. I think this is what the OP is getting at. Within a RAW discussion there comes a time when both sides are RAW. From there, the DM just needs to pick one that won't harm the players or blow up the game. If a player asks for advice and you give them an impractical version of the RAW, it could be detrimental for the group/game. If you give them a practical version of RAW they'll be able to take that back and likely have a better understanding of the game without contention between parties.

[Ramza00]

UMD checks allow one to navigate silly rules, prove this false please.

[Darg]

UMD checks allow one to navigate silly rules, prove this false please.

UMD tells you that you don't actually use the class feature, and it doesn't say that you can use the "effective class level" to determine values of effects determinant or derived from class level.

To misunderstand the RAW of UMD requires ignoring a statement and forgetting that the rules are permission based.

[Quertus]

I will add as a caveat: If someone starts up a game (a one shot where people with vow of poverty can’t use doors, a longer campaign where dragon disciples lose their dragon disciple abilities at class level 10) with the sole or main objective to disprove this thread (like specifically a “checkmate, Particle_Man! Take that!” motive), it doesn’t count as a counter-example.

Good thing you didn’t mention “drown healing” then - as a fan of Princess Bride, I’d allow such shenanigans.

That said… I don’t think that your P variant is actually RAW. So I find calling it P RAW to be misleading, if not downright disingenuous. Yes, there are distinctions to make here. But labeling RAI as a form of RAW just muddies the waters.

There’s 2 ways to go about naming, btw: making full sets, and naming like objects. That is to say, a set of rules that contains both RAW and RAI might have a different name than a set of rules that is strictly RAI.

So, the categories I can see one wanting to distinguish between:
RAW, but likely to see play at almost no tables (“drown healing”, “golden doorknobs”)
RAW, and generally not dysfunctional (“Max HP at 1st level”)
RAW… but with multiple valid readings (“Reserves of Strength”)
Rules as Intended (“True Beholder”)
Rules as Interpreted (“Vigilante spells per day”)
Rules as commonly played (“no multiclass penalties”)
Home brew (“Chronomancer”, <insert Playground spoof lightning class here>)
House Rules (“Halflings have infravision”)

[Harrow]

I can't help but feel like there's some base assumption somewhere in here that I disagree with.

Why do we care what RAW is?

As far as I can tell, the supposed use for knowing RAW is that everyone plays this game their own way, but using RAW as a starting point. Because we can't assume anything other than "uses RAW as a starting point" for other people's tables, we discuss RAW unless informed of specific houserules or homebrew in play. And, also, that's what I think is wrong. Look no further than multiclass penalties as an example for why. People rarely even think about them, even on RAW-obsessed forums, because so few people use them.

Just because something is silly, stupid, un-fun, contradictory, or straight up doesn't make sense, doesn't mean it's not RAW. RAW is all of those, from time to time. No one actually plays RAW. Yes, yes, I know this is going to attract a bunch of people that say they play in RAW-or-die groups. But, then, if you present them with something contradictory within the rules, they'll start interpreting it, and then you've hit RAI. Which is, functionally, houserules. And there's nothing wrong with that.

I agree that there are some rules interpretations that are so ubiquitous that it's not productive to assume that they aren't in play. They're still houserules, so we shouldn't call them any variation on RAW. We need to stop caring what RAW is, because the only reason we cared about in the first place was that it's the starting point you can assume for everyone's table, but even that's just a heuristic. It's right most of the time, but most people should assume that Wall of Salt, if it exists at all, cannot be used to generate infinite wealth. Yes, there are some campaigns where you can. But in most of them you can't, and it should be obvious that that houserule is the base assumption, not RAW. Because no one actually plays full RAW, and the only reason we cared about RAW in the first place was because it was a good starting point for discussion when we didn't know the group or for general discussions without a DM.

[ff7hero]

House rules aren't a bad thing, especially in the sometimes hilariously poorly edited/designed 3.X. Just call them what they are, no need for new acronyms.

[Particle_Man]

That only works if people don’t bring up “people with vow of poverty cannot use door knobs” in every thread that mentions Vow of Poverty, followed by a “it is RAW, but you can use house rules”. If we get into “so much the worse for RAW” then there is a debate about RAW and the speaker pretends to have ground to stand on. If I explicitly separate the non-helpful TRAW from the more helpful PRAW, it might help remove that ground.

[redking]

That only works if people don’t bring up “people with vow of poverty cannot use door knobs” in every thread that mentions Vow of Poverty, followed by a “it is RAW, but you can use house rules”. If we get into “so much the worse for RAW” then there is a debate about RAW and the speaker pretends to have ground to stand on. If I explicitly separate the non-helpful TRAW from the more helpful PRAW, it might help remove that ground.

A good number of people insist that "X is RAW" when RAW makes no reference to X at all. Take "true dragon" dragonwrought kobold, for example. It doesn't say anywhere that the dragonwrought kobold is a "true dragon", but it doesn't stop people from claiming its RAW.

[sreservoir]

Good thing you didn’t mention “drown healing” then - as a fan of Princess Bride, I’d allow such shenanigans.

Reports of ways to fix drowning are, sadly, greatly exaggerated...

[Troacctid]

A good number of people insist that "X is RAW" when RAW makes no reference to X at all. Take "true dragon" dragonwrought kobold, for example. It doesn't say anywhere that the dragonwrought kobold is a "true dragon", but it doesn't stop people from claiming its RAW.
Yes, people are often just wrong about what is and isn't RAW. Like, both of the examples in the OP are wrong. It's pretty commonplace.

[Harrow]

That only works if people don’t bring up “people with vow of poverty cannot use door knobs” in every thread that mentions Vow of Poverty, followed by a “it is RAW, but you can use house rules”. If we get into “so much the worse for RAW” then there is a debate about RAW and the speaker pretends to have ground to stand on. If I explicitly separate the non-helpful TRAW from the more helpful PRAW, it might help remove that ground.

I'm not sure what the problem is. You seem to be complaining that someone would rule something in a way that you don't agree with, and it keeps getting mentioned. If they don't agree on the ruling, I don't see how they're going to agree on your designation of whether it's TRAW or PRAW, even if they agreed to use those acronyms at all. The solution here isn't new abbreviations, it's pointing out to people that they're in the minority and that most tables don't play that way. Which only really works if there really is a consensus on your side.

[Particle_Man]

It goes a little further than “most tables choose not to play that way” and goes all the way into “no tables play that way if they use Vow of Poverty/Dragon Disciple at all”. I am contending that this is where it is at best TRAW (theoretical) and not PRAW (practical).

[Kurald Galain]

That only works if people don’t bring up “people with vow of poverty cannot use door knobs” in every thread that mentions Vow of Poverty, followed by a “it is RAW, but you can use house rules”.

Both of those statements are not nearly as common as you seem to think.

[H_H_F_F]

Honestly, I think I've only seen "you can't use doors" (not that I necessarily agree that this is a strong interpretation, but that's outside the scope of this thread), or anything similarly ridiculous that is believed to be RAW, in 3 contexts:
Completely theoretical rules discussion.
In contexts where someone is doing TO based on hardcore RAW, and some other dysfunctional RAW makes that fail.
As a joke. Like "VOP is terrible because (long post explaining the opinion and elaborating on different points). Also, you can't open doors."

I think I've never seen anyone give serious advice to avoid something because it doesn't work by RAW, outside of RAW reliant optimization.

And again, to me calling a commonsense and universal ruling that isn't RAW "PRAW". Is doubly problematic. It's a lie, so that's bad, and it also reinforces instead of weakening the position that RAW is King, and that's a bad position for real play. You can't fight that position by giving into it and saying "my houserule is good because it's a kind of RAW".


Reports of ways to fix drowning are, sadly, greatly exaggerated...

Iron heart surge really seems like it should work here by both RAW and RAI, unlike drown healing itself.

[Darg]

People on this forum have given the advice that psionics are psi-like abilities because they take the opening statement of the description of psi-like abilities outside of its context. It isn't helpful, but they do it anyway.

[Biggus]

No one actually plays RAW.


Yeah, I've yet to meet a group who actually make Monks take the -4 penalty for not being proficient with unarmed strikes. When I pointed this out to someone who claimed they play strict RAW, their answer was something along the lines of "that's just stupid, nobody would do that". Well, yes, exactly my point.


Yes, yes, I know this is going to attract a bunch of people that say they play in RAW-or-die groups. But, then, if you present them with something contradictory within the rules, they'll start interpreting it, and then you've hit RAI. Which is, functionally, houserules. And there's nothing wrong with that.


As well as contradictory rules, there are numerous places where RAW is vague enough that no interpretation is definitive. It's literally impossible to play truly RAW-only.

[H_H_F_F]

As well as contradictory rules, there are numerous places where RAW is vague enough that no interpretation is definitive. It's literally impossible to play truly RAW-only.

Not saying there are any real groups that rutinely play RAW only, as that is stupid - but I disagree that RAW requiring interpretation means you can't play by RAW. Language always requires interpretation. There is no meaningful distinction between playing by what one sees as the most faithful interpretation of RAW and playing by RAW.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

People on this forum have given the advice that psionics are psi-like abilities because they take the opening statement of the description of psi-like abilities outside of its context. It isn't helpful, but they do it anyway.You mean the one that says, The manifestation of psionic powers is a psi-like ability? You know, the extremely clear-cut definition of manifesting? That one?

Yep. There's a reason for that. It's because that's what the rules say.

[Wildstag]

As a joke. Like "VOP is terrible because (long post explaining the opinion and elaborating on different points). Also, you can't open doors."
{Scrubbed}


You can't use a doorknob because it's part of a material possession, but I guess you could house rule it.

In general, I think the simple explanation is that particular commenters have hangups about particular aspects of the rules.

{Scrubbed}

I'm not even sure the core argument is even a "RAW" argument so much as it is a grammar argument.

[Biggus]

Not saying there are any real groups that rutinely play RAW only, as that is stupid - but I disagree that RAW requiring interpretation means you can't play by RAW. Language always requires interpretation. There is no meaningful distinction between playing by what one sees as the most faithful interpretation of RAW and playing by RAW.

OK, I can see your point, but the distinction I'm making is that for some games, it's possible to play entirely by the rules, because those rules are simple enough and have been written with such care that there is no ambiguity in them, or almost none. Chess would be an clear example, and while no RPG I know of is that near perfect, many come a lot nearer to it than 3.5 does. The 3.5 rules are so full of ambiguity, contradiction and unworkable rules that no two groups play the same way, even if they're both RAW fanatics.

[H_H_F_F]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

In general, I think the simple explanation is that particular commenters have hangups about particular aspects of the rules.

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I'm not even sure the core argument is even a "RAW" argument so much as it is a grammar argument.

Ah, I see. I must have missed a thread that provoked this discussion. In my experience here, discussions about warshaper, for example, are usually about theory: "what do the rules say warshaper does", not about actually playing the game.


OK, I can see your point, but the distinction I'm making is that for some games, it's possible to play entirely by the rules, because those rules are simple enough and have been written with such care that there is no ambiguity in them, or almost none. Chess would be an clear example, and while no RPG I know of is that near perfect, many come a lot nearer to it than 3.5 does. The 3.5 rules are so full of ambiguity, contradiction and unworkable rules that no two groups play the same way, even if they're both RAW fanatics.

Fair distinction.

[Darg]

You mean the one that says, The manifestation of psionic powers is a psi-like ability? You know, the extremely clear-cut definition of manifesting? That one?

Yep. There's a reason for that. It's because that's what the rules say.

You mean the description under the section "Special Abilities" with the name "Psi-like Abilities (Ps)?" The structuring of the rules is just as important as the description text. It provides context to box in the wandering mind. If you want to ignore where and how the rules are structured there are a plethora of other ways the game falls apart. Picking and choosing how the rules fit together is how you get to the point of all powers are free because they are psi-like abilities. Of course I'll probably get a reply of "but the power descriptions are more specific!" Then I'll reply with examples of Ps abilities referencing their power counterparts which is also just as specific. Then another argument how "nuh uh, it's not specific because I say it isn't."

[MaxiDuRaritry]

You mean the description under the section "Special Abilities" with the name "Psi-like Abilities (Ps)?" The structuring of the rules is just as important as the description text. It provides context to box in the wandering mind. If you want to ignore where and how the rules are structured there are a plethora of other ways the game falls apart. Picking and choosing how the rules fit together is how you get to the point of all powers are free because they are psi-like abilities. Of course I'll probably get a reply of "but the power descriptions are more specific!" Then I'll reply with examples of Ps abilities referencing their power counterparts which is also just as specific. Then another argument how "nuh uh, it's not specific because I say it isn't."Okay? So you're using the fact that the heading for psi-like abilities specifically calls out manifesting powers as being one as an argument against manifesting being a psi-like ability? When the heading explicitly calls manifesting out as being a psi-like ability?

Dude, the game is notorious for putting information like that in out-of-the-way places. I mean, in Magic of Incarnum, where is the table that tells you how many essentia you can store in a soulmeld? It's certainly not under the rules for soulmelds. Does that mean that you can't store essentia in soulmelds because the text is in a poorly thought out spot?

[Darg]

Okay? So you're using the fact that the heading for psi-like abilities specifically calls out manifesting powers as being one as an argument against manifesting being a psi-like ability? When the heading explicitly calls manifesting out as being a psi-like ability?

The book goes out of it's way to separate them in multiple places. Whether in the "About Powers" section of the introduction, the traits of psionic creatures, the introduction of the "Manifesting Powers" section of the Psionics chapter, the mental resistance feat, the hostile mind feat, the force of will feat, several other feats, etc. There is no heading that says all manifesting is a psi-like ability. This is exactly what it means to take things out of context. You can say the sky is blue and I can say it's black. We can both be right while at the same time being wrong depending on the context. If you slice things thinly enough, you can get about anything to fit the parameters you want. Then all you gotta do is apply it to everything else and then there is no way you can be wrong.


Dude, the game is notorious for putting information like that in out-of-the-way places. I mean, in Magic of Incarnum, where is the table that tells you how many essentia you can store in a soulmeld? It's certainly not under the rules for soulmelds. Does that mean that you can't store essentia in soulmelds because the text is in a poorly thought out spot?

It's under the section that explains class mechanics. The essentia pool is an important feature of the classes and understanding what it does before looking at the classes leads to easier understanding of how they function. It's not out of the way when the book is structured that you have read the book in order. Out of the way would be chapter 8.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

The book goes out of it's way to separate them in multiple places. Whether in the "About Powers" section of the introduction, the traits of psionic creatures, the introduction of the "Manifesting Powers" section of the Psionics chapter, the mental resistance feat, the hostile mind feat, the force of will feat, several other feats, etc. There is no heading that says all manifesting is a psi-like ability. This is exactly what it means to take things out of context. You can say the sky is blue and I can say it's black. We can both be right while at the same time being wrong depending on the context. If you slice things thinly enough, you can get about anything to fit the parameters you want. Then all you gotta do is apply it to everything else and then there is no way you can be wrong.You really don't have a leg to stand on, here. The book is very clear. The manifestation of psionic powers is a psi-like ability. There's no amount of waffling that will make that not RAW. If you manifest a power, unless it's specified otherwise in its entry, it's classified as a (Ps).

There's no way to misinterpret that unless you're willfully ignoring the text completely.


It's under the section that explains class mechanics. The essentia pool is an important feature of the classes and understanding what it does before looking at the classes leads to easier understanding of how they function. It's not out of the way when the book is structured that you have read the book in order. Out of the way would be chapter 8.And yet what about soulmelds granted by feats or by spells or by racial abilities? Since you insist that class-based manifesting isn't psi-like because the text for that isn't under the class section, by the same metric, that table would only apply to class-based soulmelds.

So what's the essentia cap for non-class receptacles, including incarnum-based feats?

[Troacctid]

You really don't have a leg to stand on, here. The book is very clear. The manifestation of psionic powers is a psi-like ability. There's no amount of waffling that will make that not RAW. If you manifest a power, unless it's specified otherwise in its entry, it's classified as a (Ps).

There's no way to misinterpret that unless you're willfully ignoring the text completely.
Sounds pretty ambiguous to me. Is every power all considered to be one PLA, like an eldritch blast with blast shapes and essences, or are they each separate PLAs? Or is there simply an overarching "ability to manifest powers" PLA that must be active in order to use powers that are not themselves PLAs? Or is manifesting powers considered a PLA for some creatures that mark it that way, but not for others that don't? Many creatures have manifesting that is not labeled as (Ps). What's the difference between "the ability to manifest powers," which no psionic class explicitly has as a named class ability, vs. the "power points/day" and "powers known" abilities that psionic classes actually give you?

It all raises a lot more questions than it answers. And none of it leads to psi-like abilities counting as spell-like abilities, either. That's a whole 'nother slice of pie.

[Darg]

The manifestation of psionic powers is a psi-like ability.

What are you talking about? No where in the book is this a quote. Please tell me where I can find it. Psionic powers and psi-like abilities are never in the same sentence except to provide distinction between them. You also ignore the examples I put forth. "A power is manifested when a psionic character pays its power point cost. Some psionic creatures automatically manifest powers, called psi-like abilities, without paying a power point cost. Other creatures pay power points to manifest their powers, just as characters do." Psi-like abilities are a form of manifestation of powers, but they are not the only kind.

Taking a single sentence within a single box of specific context and applying it to everything in the book is willful disregard for the book on the whole. Heck, the sentence following the the line you were probably trying to express outright refutes that all powers are SLAs.


And yet what about soulmelds granted by feats or by spells or by racial abilities? Since you insist that class-based manifesting isn't psi-like because the text for that isn't under the class section, by the same metric, that table would only apply to class-based soulmelds.

So what's the essentia cap for non-class receptacles, including incarnum-based feats?


However large your essentia pool is, you can only invest a certain amount of essentia into any one soulmeld, feat, class feature, magic item, or other incarnum receptacle. Your character level determines this essentia capacity, as shown on Table 2–1.


Unlike a soulmeld or incarnum feat, each magic item described below has its own maximum essentia capacity. When you invest essentia in the item, use this capacity or your normal maximum essentia capacity, whichever is less.


Duskling base speed is 30 feet. However, a duskling can invest essentia to improve this speed. For every point of essentia invested in this racial trait, the duskling’s speed improves by 5 feet. (See Essentia, page 50, for information about investing essentia.) This enhancement bonus only applies when the duskling is wearing light or no armor and carrying no more than a light load.


Each meldshaper has a pool of essentia: the substance of the character’s spirit that is unlocked by the power of incarnum. The size of this pool is determined by the character’s level, as noted on Table 2—1.

Have you read the book or have you just skimmed it for the stuff you want and make assumptions based on the parts you've actually read? You say I don't have a leg to stand on, but what you say isn't helping your case at all.

[Quertus]

So, the categories I can see one wanting to distinguish between:
RAW, but likely to see play at almost no tables (“drown healing”, “golden doorknobs”)
RAW, and generally not dysfunctional (“Max HP at 1st level”)
RAW… but with multiple valid readings (“Reserves of Strength”)
Rules as Intended (“True Beholder”)
Rules as Interpreted (“Vigilante spells per day”)
Rules as commonly played (“no multiclass penalties”)
Home brew (“Chronomancer”, <insert Playground spoof lightning class here>)
House Rules (“Halflings have infravision”)


I can see I missed at least two:
Misread /misremembered / wrong edition (“Vorpal triggers on crit”, “True Resurrection takes a 50,000 GP Diamond”)
Reading comprehension failure / requires twisting English in painful ways (???)


I’m not sure what a classic example would be for that last one, though.

Also, I haven’t (re)read VoP lately - is “golden doorknobs” actually an example of “RAW with multiple valid readings”?

[Biggus]

Also, I haven’t (re)read VoP lately - is “golden doorknobs” actually an example of “RAW with multiple valid readings”?

I can't imagine any but the most vindictive DM enforcing that in a game, so I'd say it's in the right category.

What's “True Beholder”?

[Quertus]

What's “True Beholder”?

It’s a phrase that the devs used, but never defined. But they didn’t have to define it, because it was already in use in 2e. In 2e, beholders had lots of sub species, which were divided into “True beholders” and “beholder kin”.

I’m kinda sad 3e (afaik) never saw the resurgence of the vast variety of eye-themed piñatas.

[Biggus]

It’s a phrase that the devs used, but never defined. But they didn’t have to define it, because it was already in use in 2e. In 2e, beholders had lots of sub species, which were divided into “True beholders” and “beholder kin”.

I’m kinda sad 3e (afaik) never saw the resurgence of the vast variety of eye-themed piñatas.

There eight types of beholderkin in 3.5 (nine if you count the eyeball swarm from Expedition to Undermountain). How many were there in 2e?

https://web.archive.org/web/20161031212207/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/monsters

[Quertus]

There eight types of beholderkin in 3.5 (nine if you count the eyeball swarm from Expedition to Undermountain). How many were there in 2e?

https://web.archive.org/web/20161031212207/http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/monsters

Cool link.

Ah, just in the “core” 2e monster manual, we have…

Beholder
Death Kiss
Eye of the Deep
Gauth
Spectator
Undead (Beholder)
Hive Mother
Director
Examiner
Lensman
Overseer
Watcher

All with stat blocks. And mentioned but unstatted

Beholder Mage (yes, it was a species, not a Prestige Class)
Elder Orb
Orbus
Doomsphere
Kasharin
Astereater
Gorbel

So… 12-19, just in the core book.

[loky1109]

True issue of beholderkins is located in the Lords of Madness book.
Let's look.

Physical differences are the most minor of variations among beholders. Two notable beholder variants, the elder orb and the hive mother, possess wildly different abilities from those of normal beholders. Beyond these are the myriad forms of beholderkin, true aberrations among the race. Creatures like gauths, overseers, and eyes of the deep are the subjects of wrath among true beholders, for they are similar enough in appearance and ability to be regarded as mockeries of the beholder self-image.

Elder Orb, Hive Mother and Death Tyrant are located below. And Beholderkin paragraph.

A vast number of beholderkin exist. Not true beholders, these creatures do not share the race’s xenophobia, although most are still quite evil and cruel in nature. True beholders consider beholderkin to be abominations.
The death kiss, eyeball, and gouger are detailed in Monsters of Faerûn. The gauth is detailed in the Monster Manual. For statistics for the director, eye of the deep, overseer, and spectator, see Chapter 8.
We can see beholderkins are all that isn't true beholders.

But... Beholderkin in New monsters chapter on the p. 135 includes: HIVE MOTHER, DIRECTOR, EYE OF THE DEEP, OVERSEER, SPECTATOR. Well, the director, eye of the deep, overseer, and spectator clearly are Beholderkins, but how about Hive Mother? Earlier it wasn't Beholderkin, but here it is included.

[redking]

But... Beholderkin in New monsters chapter on the p. 135 includes: HIVE MOTHER, DIRECTOR, EYE OF THE DEEP, OVERSEER, SPECTATOR. Well, the director, eye of the deep, overseer, and spectator clearly are Beholderkins, but how about Hive Mother? Earlier it wasn't Beholderkin, but here it is included.

I read that as all beholders are beholderkin, but only some beholders are true beholders. For what it's worth, however, it's clear that hive mothers are not true beholders based on simple disqualification by appearance. Even more similar (to true beholders) creatures are dismissed as not being true beholders.

Obviously it is a word salad that snuck through the editing process.

[loky1109]

In 2e hive mother was true beholder.

[redking]

In 2e hive mother was true beholder.

In 3E the hive mothers are some sort of bololder-kin parasite, right?

[loky1109]

In 3E the hive mothers are some sort of bololder-kin parasite, right?

It's evolution of regular beholder.
https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Great_Mother
Under Worshipers Variants.