Rules Q&A Monsters Advancing By Class [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-15, 08:18 AM

Let us dissect the rule sentence by sentence..

We start with the "Advancement:" lines definition in "Reading the Monster Entries"..

The monster entry usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature.
This is referring to the fact that most monsters only have a single entry (the most common encountered version) while some have multiple entries (like when a monster has subraces or specific entries with class levels)!

This is not giving permission to ignore any stat values of the entries nor does it allow you to alter em just because the rules only give you the commonly encountered version (single monster entry). That is not the intention and not what the rule is referring to here.

The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice. (This is not an absolute limit, but exceptions are extremely rare.) Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die. (See Improving Monsters.)
Here first the advancement by extra HD is explained and then we are told that "often" (not always and not giving an actual rule how often..) intelligent creatures can advance by class lvl. Finally we are referred to "Improving Monsters" for more Info.

The "Advancement:"-line doesn't ignore the rules in "Improving Monsters", but is actively referring us to em! So we should have a look what is presented there:

Improving Monsters

Each of the monster entries describes a typical creature of its kind. However, there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters can be created using a typical creature as the foundation: by adding character classes, increasing a monster’s Hit Dice, or by adding a template to a monster. These methods are not mutually exclusive—it’s possible for a monster with a template to be improved by both increasing its Hit Dice and adding character class levels.

At first we are provided with an overview how monsters can be improved. Including the two relevant options for us, namely increasing HD and by class lvls. Lets have a look at both..

Class Levels

Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line. When a monster adds a class level, that level usually represents an increase in experience and learned skills and capabilities.
The first sentence ain't a hard rule since it only talks about "most commonly" and not in "general".

But the second sentence explicitly talks about the creatures that "fall into this category" (advance by class lvls).
It doesn't have anything like "most/some/...". It sole talks about the creatures that belong into this category and demands that these have the entry "by character class"! A strict requirement.

Increased Hit Dice

Intelligent creatures that are not humanoid in shape, and nonintelligent monsters, can advance by increasing their Hit Dice. Creatures with increased Hit Dice are usually superior specimens of their race, bigger and more powerful than their run-of-the-mill fellows.
Being not humanoid in shape is or not being intelligent enough puts you into the advance by HD camp. No some/sometimes/... it's strict with its statement. Thus, again you would need a specific exception to trump this.

edit: regarding the Aboleth example..
They are 2 related monsters and not the same base monster that is advancing. An Aboleth can't become a Aboleth Mage by RAW. It's like a queen bee and a worker bee. Both are the same species but a worker never can become a queen.

Biggus

2023-09-15, 08:35 AM

Being not humanoid in shape is or not being intelligent enough puts you into the advance by HD camp. No some/sometimes/... it's strict with its statement. Thus, again you would need a specific exception to trump this.

No, it says they "can" advance by adding hit dice, not that they "can only" or "always" advance by HD.

edit: regarding the Aboleth example..
They are 2 related monsters and not the same base monster that is advancing. An Aboleth can't become a Aboleth Mage by RAW. It's like a queen bee and a worker bee. Both are the same species but a worker never can become a queen.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Edit: right before the sections you quote, it gives the example of a half-dragon lammasu (a lammasu has a listed HD advancement) and says it can advance by either hit dice or class levels.

NontheistCleric

2023-09-15, 08:41 AM

But the second sentence explicitly talks about the creatures that "fall into this category" (advance by class lvls).
It doesn't have anything like "most/some/...". It sole talks about the creatures that belong into this category and demands that these have the entry "by character class"! A strict requirement.

What you are missing here is that the entry 'by character class' only denotes a monster as belonging to the aforementioned category of monsters (intelligent humanoid-shaped creatures that most commonly advance by character class). At no point does it claim to mean that monsters lacking that language in their entries or otherwise beyond the scope of the category cannot make use of the advancement methods made generally available to them, including class level advancement.

No, it says they "can" advance by adding hit dice, not that they "can only" or "always" advance by HD.
Also, this.

Metastachydium

2023-09-15, 08:47 AM

edit: regarding the Aboleth example..
They are 2 related monsters and not the same base monster that is advancing. An Aboleth can't become a Aboleth Mage by RAW. It's like a queen bee and a worker bee. Both are the same species but a worker never can become a queen.

Equine feces. (Giant) Ant Workers and Queens have a different number of racial HD, different speed(s), natural armour and what you will. Aboleth and Aboleth Mage are exactly like Troll and Troll Hunter. The only difference is the class HD tacked on. Your argument only stands if the Troll Hunter is listed as its separate entry because it's a different creature a regular Troll can never become. But that is blatantly false, even by your interpretation of the rules.

At any rate, the fluff text of the Aboleth Mage says

[a]mong the watery tombs and dungeons they inhabit, the lords of the aboleths focus their efforts to achieve dominion through their study of wizardry.
They aren't born different or whatever. They are really just what they look like, based on the statblock: Aboleths that studied wizardry and became Wizards.

EDIT: Oh, and it gets better if we consider LoM:

Aboleths often advance in character classes. In particular, they favor the fi ghter, monk, rogue, sorcerer, and wizard classes. Aboleth wizard spellbooks consist of stone tablets or metal sheaves; they might even record their spells on the inner walls of their lair. Aboleths almost never gain levels in divine spellcasting classes; clerics of Ghaunadaur, the Patient One, and Tharizdun are rare exceptions to this rule. As for prestige classes, aboleth characters take levels of archmage, assassin, eldritch knight, and loremaster. Dragon disciple aboleths are rumored to exist as well, and of course, the majestic and dangerous savant aboleths rule their kind.

Telonius

2023-09-15, 09:01 AM

My general take: if it's something controlled by a player, it advances according to class level (unless there's very good reason and approval by the DM, or something weird like lycanthropy, gaining some other HD-altering template, or Legacy Weapon advancement).

If it's not controlled by the player, it's something made by the DM, and is rule zero territory. If you say it advances based on the number of potato chips the players eat that session, then that's what it does. Add levels, HD, templates, whatever you want.

AvatarVecna

2023-09-15, 09:36 AM

I've seen a poster here saying that, by RAW, any monster that doesn't have "Advances by Class" in their statblock cannot advance by class.

Just want to see the forums general thoughts on how valid that is, in its own dedicated thread. It gets mentioned in other threads, but isn't the focus.

Long story short, it's only RAW if you squint, and it's definitely not RAI.

Advancement base rules (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#advancement)

The monster entry usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature. The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice. (This is not an absolute limit, but exceptions are extremely rare.) Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die. (See Improving Monsters.)

"The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice. (This is not an absolute limit, but exceptions are extremely rare.)"

So if the advancement says "X-Y HD", Y is not actually a limit. It's just that examples with more than Y HD are statistically improbable in-universe. How rare any given HD of a given monster is, isn't stated anywhere as far as I know. One could presume that each extra HD makes it less likely to occur; for example, maybe 50% of aboleths are 8 HD, 25% are 9 HD, 12.5% are 10 HD, etc (and thus, aboleths with more than 24 racial HD account for 1 in ~131 thousand aboleths). But because D&D works with actually-infinite alternate dimensions, it's possible (even plausible) that if you look hard enough you can find any given creature at any given HD. The number of normal toads in the multiverse with 9001 HD is low...but very possibly not zero.

"Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die. (See Improving Monsters.)"

The key word here is "often". So even with intelligent creatures, advancing by class isn't a requirement, it's just the most common advancement method.

Improving Monsters (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm)

Each of the monster entries describes a typical creature of its kind. However, there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters can be created using a typical creature as the foundation: by adding character classes, increasing a monster’s Hit Dice, or by adding a template to a monster. These methods are not mutually exclusive—it’s possible for a monster with a template to be improved by both increasing its Hit Dice and adding character class levels.

Class Levels
Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line. When a monster adds a class level, that level usually represents an increase in experience and learned skills and capabilities.

Increased Hit Dice
Intelligent creatures that are not humanoid in shape, and nonintelligent monsters, can advance by increasing their Hit Dice. Creatures with increased Hit Dice are usually superior specimens of their race, bigger and more powerful than their run-of-the-mill fellows.

Templates
Both intelligent and nonintelligent creatures with an unusual heritage or an inflicted change in their essential nature may be modified with a template. Templates usually result in tougher monsters with capabilities that differ from those of their common kin.

Each of these three methods for improving monsters is discussed in more detail below.

"These methods are not mutually exclusive—it’s possible for a monster with a template to be improved by both increasing its Hit Dice and adding character class levels."

So it is explicit that these methods aren't necessarily exclusive with each other, and in fact explicitly states that it's possible for a monster to maybe even benefit from all three advancement methods.

"Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line."

"Most commonly" but not always. Presumably templates are on the table. It doesn't say whether HD advancement is or isn't.

"Intelligent creatures that are not humanoid in shape, and nonintelligent monsters, can advance by increasing their Hit Dice."

"Can advance" is not stating they are required to do so, merely that they have permission.

The closest you can get to what you're describing is that there's no rule explicitly giving intelligent humanoid-ish creatures permission to advance by HD, and there's no rule explicitly giving intelligent nonhumanoids permission to advance by class. If one operates on a "if it doesn't say you can, then you can't" default, then one could maybe pretend there is an explicit rule saying they can't, but that's not actually written down anywhere. But also, if one takes that approach, then there are a decent number of exceptions to both unstated rules even within core.

Aboleth is intelligent nonhumanoid and thus should be just HD advancement, but gives an explicit example of an aboleth with class levels.

Core angels are intelligent and humanoid in shape but advance by HD by default.

Hound archon is an intelligent humanoid with an explicit HD advancement by default (although they also have a class advancement example). Trumpet archon is more humanoid than hound archon and still advances by HD (this time without even having an explicit class advancement option).

Athatch is an "aberration" but it's essentially just a giant with a third arm growing out of its chest (including in regards to intelligence). It's certainly more humanoid in shape than thri-kreen, and yet it advances by HD.

Beholder is undeniably an intelligent nonhumanoid, and sure enough advances by HD...as long as we ignore the Beholder-only PrC that everyone and their mother knows about.

Bodak are intelligent humanoids (well, intelligent enough, anyway), and yet they advance by HD.

Are centaurs "humanoid-shaped"? If you don't think so, then they break the rule because they advance by class.

Taking a look at core demons, and you find something interesting. Babau, Balor, Dretch, Hezrou, and Quasit all have three things in common: an Int score high enough to count as intelligent creatures, a physical description that explicitly includes the word "humanoid", and advancement by HD. If we drop the "humanoid literally in the description" and just go by which ones are close enough to human shape, we can also add Succubus, Nalfeshnee (ape-like biped), maybe Vrock (bird-person, but maybe you think feathered bipeds don't count), and maybe Glabrezu (four arms and they're not the most humanoid of limbs but it's about as close as centaur in terms of silhoulette). Even if we go with just the base five, though, that's 5/12 core demons that break the unwritten rule.

11 core devils, and fully 9 of them are intelligent humanoid-shaped creatures that advance by HD. Lemure is nonintelligent, Hellcat is nonhumanoid. That's it.

Devourer is intelligent, humanoid-shaped, and advances by HD.

Dragons are undeniably intelligent, undeniably nonhumanoid, and admittedly default to HD advancement. However, there's at least a dozen explicitly-for-dragons PrCs in the game.

Driders are like centaurs, just with spider bodies instead of horse bodies. They also advance by class, which similarly breaks the rule if you think they are insufficiently humanoid-shaped.

Eladrin of both kinds are undeniably intelligent humanoids and yet advance by HD.

Ettercaps are at least as humanoid as driders, and yet advance by HD. They are a lot dumber I guess, but still well within acceptable bounds for a PC.

Gargoyle are a Medium-sized Monstrous Humanoid with Int 6, and advance by HD. They are certainly not unintelligent, certainly humanoid, so why do they break the rule? In fairness, they at least have a race write-up for if you wanna advance by class. But it's not even their default.

Genies are in the same boat, except they're smart enough to not even have that excuse. They're just as humanoid as centaurs and driders ("from the waist up"), and yet they advance by HD by default. Janni even have a race write-up!

Ghouls and ghasts are intelligent humanoids and yet advance by HD.

Guardinals both are reasonably intelligent/humanoid and yet advance by HD.

Homunculi are Int 10, described as humanoid-shaped, and advance by HD.

Inevitables is the same story; int, shape, but HD.

Lamia are as humanoid as centaurs, smarter than you, and advance by HD. Isn't that a nice catch-22? If you decide a centaur-like creature is humanoid enough, then Lamia breaks the rule. If you decide they aren't, centaur breaks the rule.

Lillend are in the same boat as Lamia, where they have a centaur setup but advance by HD.

Magmin - explictly humanoid-shaped, Int 8, HD advancement.

Mephits are Int 6 but otherwise same boat as Magmin.

If centaurs aren't humanoid enough for you then merfolk probably aren't either. They advance by class too.

Mohrg is intelligent/humanoid but advances by HD.

Mummy is Int 6, humanoid-shaped, and advances by HD. It also has an explicit class progression option. So regardless of whether you think Int 6 qualifies as intelligent or not, mummy is breaking a rule.

Night hags are humanoid, intelligent, and advance by HD.

Nightwalker is as humanoid as any Huge giant, and probably smarter, but advances by HD.

Nymphs are barely mechanically distinguishable from Dryads, but dryads advance by class while nymphs advance by HD.

If you're of the opinion that Int 6 is too low to be intelligent, I have bad news about ogres: they advance by class level anyway.

Sahuagin are intelligent humanoids, and yet advance by HD.

Satyr are intelligent humanoids, and yet advance by HD.

Skum are intelligent humanoids, and yet advance by HD.

Slaad are all intelligent humanoids, and yet advance by HD. They've even got their own personal PrC, to add to the confusion.

Spectres are intelligent humanoids advancing by HD.

Nixies are closer to being humanoid than pixies are, and yet advance by HD. Grigs are as humanoid as centaurs and advance by HD.

Titan is just a bigger giant, and yet it advances by HD instead of class levels. Why?

Tritons are more humanoid than merfolk but advance by HD instead.

Unicorns are intelligent nonhumanoids and advance by HD...but have an option to take class levels apparently?

Wights are intelligent humanoids and yet advance by HD.

Xill are either sufficiently humanoid (and thus their default HD advancement breaks the rule), or they aren't (and the later-mentioned ability to take class levels breaks the rule).

At what point are there so many counterexamples that it stops being "specific exceptions to the rule that isn't written down anywhere" and starts being "proof that the reason the rule isn't written down is because it's not a rule"? How many intelligent humanoid-shaped creatures advancing by HD does it take to admit defeat? How many intelligent nonhumanoid advancing by class level by default? How many intelligent nonhumanoids advancing by HD but having the option to take class levels? At what point does your "Rules As Written that isn't actually written anywhere" argument fall apart?

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-15, 09:50 AM

No, it says they "can" advance by adding hit dice, not that they "can only" or "always" advance by HD.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Edit: right before the sections you quote, it gives the example of a half-dragon lammasu (a lammasu has a listed HD advancement) and says it can advance by either hit dice or class levels.
Yeah, it gives permission to advance by HD.
"Can" is used to indicate that "Advancement:" is an option and nothing that you are forced to do. At not point does "can" in that sentence give you the option that it "can also advance by class". That is what I was trying to point out here.

regarding the half-dragon lammasu:
It's not the first time that 3.5 brings illegal examples. Example don't make rules. They should represent rules. Wrong representations are not additional rules.
Finally, the general rules presented in that paragraph can be trumped by the specific rules for advancing by HD and by class. The specific rules for class still trump the general rules in this case.

What you are missing here is that the entry 'by character class' only denotes a monster as belonging to the aforementioned category of monsters (intelligent humanoid-shaped creatures that most commonly advance by character class). At no point does it claim to mean that monsters lacking that language in their entries or otherwise beyond the scope of the category cannot make use of the advancement methods made generally available to them, including class level advancement.

Also, this.
Our main point of interest is "does a monster belongs into the category advancement by class" or not.
While the rules also tell us the general attributes common for these creatures (that advance by class), that is not our main point of interest. (That might be useful if you are homebrewing a monster)
We only care who belongs into this category by RAW and the rules demand for that explicitly the entry "Advancement: by character class".

Equine feces. (Giant) Ant Workers and Queens have a different number of racial HD, different speed(s), natural armour and what you will. Aboleth and Aboleth Mage are exactly like Troll and Troll Hunter. The only difference is the class HD tacked on. Your argument only stands if the Troll Hunter is listed as its separate entry because it's a different creature a regular Troll can never become. But that is blatantly false, even by your interpretation of the rules.

At any rate, the fluff text of the Aboleth Mage says

They aren't born different or whatever. They are really just what they look like, based on the statblock: Aboleths that studied wizardry and became Wizards.

EDIT: Oh, and it gets better if we consider LoM:

In all mentioned cases the additional entries with class lvl create a specific exception. That is what the general rule with the half-dragon lammasu tried to showcase with their wrong example. Aboleth/-Mage and Troll/-Hunter would have been valid examples for these specific exceptions.

But that doesn't change that you need a specific exception like additional entries with a different "Advancement:"line.

A regular Aboleth can't advance by class by RAW. Only specific Aboleth Mages can do so. You can't have an Aboleth Fighter, but you can have an Aboleth Mage Fighter. Try to see the mechanical difference here.

And if you play with the LoM supplement, you can use the specific rules there to trump the general rules presented in the MM.

NontheistCleric

2023-09-15, 10:19 AM

Our main point of interest is "does a monster belongs into the category advancement by class" or not.
While the rules also tell us the general attributes common for these creatures (that advance by class), that is not our main point of interest. (That might be useful if you are homebrewing a monster)
We only care who belongs into this category by RAW and the rules demand for that explicitly the entry "Advancement: by character class".

It's not an exclusive category, though. It's a category defined as consisting of intelligent, humanoid-shaped creatures that most commonly advance by character class, but at no point does it contradict the rule given earlier about monsters, with no additional qualifiers, being able to advance by character class. You are trying to make a line in a monster entry that references text that is not a strict rule do work that it simply cannot do, by RAW.

Contrast this with the 3 Int rule, which actually constitutes a strict exception to the general one that monsters can advance by character class.

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-16, 01:26 AM

It's not an exclusive category, though. It's a category defined as consisting of intelligent, humanoid-shaped creatures that most commonly advance by character class, but at no point does it contradict the rule given earlier about monsters, with no additional qualifiers, being able to advance by character class. You are trying to make a line in a monster entry that references text that is not a strict rule do work that it simply cannot do, by RAW.

Contrast this with the 3 Int rule, which actually constitutes a strict exception to the general one that monsters can advance by character class.

Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line.

This sentence makes it exclusive. If you want to "fall into this category" you have to have the entry "by character class". It is not talking about creatures that most commonly advance by class anymore, but is solely talking about those that are part of the category "advance by class". This is a strict exclusive statement.

NontheistCleric

2023-09-16, 02:11 AM

This sentence makes it exclusive. If you want to "fall into this category" you have to have the entry "by character class". It is not talking about creatures that most commonly advance by class anymore, but is solely talking about those that are part of the category "advance by class". This is a strict exclusive statement.

The line only signifies that a creature belongs to the category. It does not say that creatures outside the category cannot also advance that way, as the more general rule would allow them to sans any such prohibition (and there is, indeed, no such thing).

Unintuitive? Yes, but then much about 3.5 is.

Also, it is still talking about creatures that most commonly advance by class, because that is how the category was defined.

AvatarVecna

2023-09-16, 03:52 AM

Technically, if one reads " can advance by increasing their Hit Dice" as granting monsters permission to advance by HD, and therefore not granting permission to take class levels...well the game doesn't give that permission to humanoids either. The rules don't say they can, just that the usually do. By RAW most characters are illegal.

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-17, 03:04 AM

The line only signifies that a creature belongs to the category. It does not say that creatures outside the category cannot also advance that way, as the more general rule would allow them to sans any such prohibition (and there is, indeed, no such thing).

Unintuitive? Yes, but then much about 3.5 is.

Also, it is still talking about creatures that most commonly advance by class, because that is how the category was defined.
The more general rule you are referring to is referring us to "Improving Monster".
And if we go to Improving Monster - Class Levels we have:

Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line. When a monster adds a class level, that level usually represents an increase in experience and learned skills and capabilities.

You can't nitpick only half of the general rules and ignore that it is referring you to Improving Monsters. It's explicitly referring you to the general rules for that topic and thus has no intention to trump them.
When somebody simply tells you where you find a rule, then he isn't showing you any intention to change that rule.. but that is what you are implying here.
The Advancement line refers to the Improving Monster rules after giving an oversimplified overview and doesn't show any intention to trump em.

Technically, if one reads " can advance by increasing their Hit Dice" as granting monsters permission to advance by HD, and therefore not granting permission to take class levels...well the game doesn't give that permission to humanoids either. The rules don't say they can, just that the usually do. By RAW most characters are illegal.

While I know that you intended your comment as joke (and I appreciate that you try to lighten up the mood here^^), I still want to comment on the implied argument here, to give some more insight onto the topic ;)

The difference here is that PCs don't advance but are leveling (or are starting at a higher lvl, where part of the backstory is lvling). The rules for XP and lvling player characters are found in the PHB.

But that doesn't help "Monsters". Those rely on the their entry in the MM. Thus an NPC relies mainly on the MM entry and on the advancement rules provided there to improve. It doesn't have nor gain XP to begin with... (unless it is not a foe but an ally that sticks as NPC to the group for a longer time..)

And the last time I checked the MM the PHB races all had the entry "Advancement: by character class"..

NontheistCleric

2023-09-17, 03:21 AM

You can't nitpick only half of the general rules and ignore that it is referring you to Improving Monsters. It's explicitly referring you to the general rules for that topic and thus has no intention to trump them.
When somebody simply tells you where you find a rule, then he isn't showing you any intention to change that rule.. but that is what you are implying here.
The Advancement line refers to the Improving Monster rules after giving an oversimplified overview and doesn't show any intention to trump em.

Yes, the text may say 'By character class', but when we look at the actual rule, don't you see that the words 'By character class' are defined, in the context of the Advancement line, as referring to a category that consists of humanoid-shaped monsters that most commonly advance by character class? Most importantly for the purposes of this discussion, a category that never–not once in any part of its description–claims to be the exclusive possessor of the ability to advance by character class?

Claiming that RAW makes advancing by character class available only to creatures with 'By character class' in their advancement line is like claiming that by RAW, monks are proficient with unarmed strikes. At first glance, it might make sense that that's what it means, but when you look more closely, it just isn't the case.

In fact, it's even more egregious, because the designers at least clearly intended that monks be proficient with unarmed strikes. Judging by the numerous monsters with class levels throughout all the 3.5 books, they clearly did not intend for class levels to be exclusive to creatures with 'By character class' in their Advancement line.

Just once more, for clarity: The words 'By character class' in a creature's Advancement line do not, in fact, make that form of advancement exclusive to the creature or creatures with those words, because they are only a reference to rules that do not do so, not a rule in themselves, and in fact, even if they were a rule in themselves, they still do not preclude the possibility of monsters without those words gaining class levels.

Actually, wait, are you agreeing with me? You seem adamant that the line refers to the Improving Monsters rules, but that's what I have been saying all along. There is nothing in the Improving Monsters rules that supports your assertions. That has been the entire thrust of my argument. What are you even trying to say, now?

And the last time I checked the MM the PHB races all had the entry "Advancement: by character class"..

Actually, humans don't, since they lack an MM entry entirely. Oh no! Does that mean that by RAW, humans cannot gain class levels?!

Please.

AvatarVecna

2023-09-17, 05:38 AM

And the last time I checked the MM the PHB races all had the entry "Advancement: by character class"..

Right. And that line is referring to the text I quoted. Which doesn't say that intelligent humanoids can advance by HD, it just say that they commonly do so. So the text refuses to give them permission and calls them all cheaters. That's the RAW of the situation.

My post isn't a light-hearted joke to ease the tension. It's mocking the very idea that the lack of "can" in this section of the rules means they can't, because if that's the case, then there's no point anywhere in the text that says humanoids can advance by class.

(Also, your argument that leveling isn't the same as advancing is...certainly interesting.)

Metastachydium

2023-09-17, 06:26 AM

In all mentioned cases the additional entries with class lvl create a specific exception. That is what the general rule with the half-dragon lammasu tried to showcase with their wrong example. Aboleth/-Mage and Troll/-Hunter would have been valid examples for these specific exceptions.

But that doesn't change that you need a specific exception like additional entries with a different "Advancement:"line.

A regular Aboleth can't advance by class by RAW. Only specific Aboleth Mages can do so. You can't have an Aboleth Fighter, but you can have an Aboleth Mage Fighter. Try to see the mechanical difference here.

Well, if you wish to argue that Troll Ranger 7 and Troll Hunter Ranger 1 are two entirely different creatures, and therefore by RAW a Troll Hunter can have two first levels in Ranger, be my guest.

Aboleth Mage is the same. It's just that racial HD is not normally advanced once class levels have been taken.

But that doesn't help "Monsters". Those rely on the their entry in the MM. Thus an NPC relies mainly on the MM entry and on the advancement rules provided there to improve. It doesn't have nor gain XP to begin with... (unless it is not a foe but an ally that sticks as NPC to the group for a longer time..)

And the last time I checked the MM the PHB races all had the entry "Advancement: by character class"..

Actually, humans don't, since they lack an MM entry entirely. Oh no! Does that mean that by RAW, humans cannot gain class levels?!

It's wilder than that! By RAW Humans can't be NPCs, because that would require them to be Monsters which they aren't!!

Chronos

2023-09-17, 07:17 AM

That "rule" (and it's not even really a rule, thanks to the "typically") just says that humanoid-shaped creatures will say "By character class" in their advancement line. From the fact that beholders lack that line, then, we can conclude that beholders aren't humanoid-shaped (because if they were, they'd include that line). But this doesn't matter at all, because we already knew that beholders aren't humanoid-shaped.

That paragraph says literally nothing at all about creatures that aren't shaped like humanoids. It therefore has no relevance at all to beholders. And so, to determine whether beholders can take class levels, we have to look elsewhere. Like to the general rule that says "Monsters can advance by gaining class levels".

Zanos

2023-09-17, 09:56 AM

I've seen this topic thrown around in a couple threads recently. I do hope this is just for mental exercise and people arent seriously gathering ammo to tell their DM that his abloeth can't have 2 wizard levels, it either has 10 or none.

Forrestfire

2023-09-18, 05:41 AM

Honestly, it's a little weird to me that the only rules being cited here are from the SRD, when the SRD is well-known to strip out not only rules but clarifying examples that remove ambiguity when it comes to core book weirdness.

For example: the "improving monsters" page (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm) on the SRD says:

Each of the monster entries describes a typical creature of its kind. However, there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters can be created using a typical creature as the foundation: by adding character classes, increasing a monster’s Hit Dice, or by adding a template to a monster. These methods are not mutually exclusive—it’s possible for a monster with a template to be improved by both increasing its Hit Dice and adding character class levels.

Its source, instead, has the following:

Each of the monster entries in Chapters 1 through 3 describes a typical creature of its kind. However, there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters can be created using a typical creature as the foundation: by adding character classes, increasing a monster’s Hit Dice, or by adding a template to a monster. These methods are not mutually exclusive—it’s possible for a monster with a template (a half-dragon lammasu, for example) to be improved by both increasing its Hit Dice and adding character class levels.

This is an explicit callout that a creature with no "by class levels" advancement listed can be improved by adding character class levels (as implied by the rules; it says that adding class levels is one of the ways monsters can improve, and that's a general rule that is not contradicted). This is consistent through the chapter.

When we get to the "Class Levels" entry in the introductory part, it has this to say:

Class Levels: Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of “By character class” in their Advancement line. When a monster adds a class level, that level usually represents an increase in experience and learned skills and capabilities.
To restate what other people have said, this paragraph says two things.

Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels.
Creatures that fall into this category (that is to say, the category is "Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape") have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line.

(2) does not state or imply that those are the only such creatures that can advance by class levels. Just that that category ("Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape") is defined by listing "By character class" in their Advancement line.

Now, to move on: on page 294 of the Monster Manual, we have the rules for associated class levels. This tells you how you up challenge rating when adding class levels.

There is a notable example here that was omitted from the SRD:

Rogue and ranger are associated classes for a creature that relies on stealth to surprise its foes, or on skill use to give itself an advantage. The babau demon, for example, is “sneaky and sly” and has sneak attack as a special ability. Rogue is an associated class for this creature.

The babau demon (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm) advances by racial Hit Dice. Why, if it cannot ever advance by class levels by the rules, is it then listed with an associated class, and stated as being able to get class levels?

We can also find rules about this at the start of the Monster Manual:

This book usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature (though some entries for advanced monsters can be found). The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice. (This is not an absolute limit, but exceptions are extremely rare.) Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die.

Note that unlike in the SRD, there is no callout to refer to Improving Monsters. This is simply a rule being stated—that often, intelligent monsters advance by taking class levels instead of gaining Hit Dice. It does not tell us how often, only that it does happen. This is not contradicted by the Improving Monsters section, of course; that section also says monsters can be improved by adding class levels (as a general rule). But nonetheless, I call this out because the SRD transcribed this incorrectly; it is not a reference to the later chapter as you asserted, and does not support the argument given.

It is also notable (this text is in the SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#addingHitDice), too) that page 294 of the Monster Manual states in the rules for determining CR that when advancing monsters by Hit Dice, you don't stack the increase in CR with the increase from class levels you've also added (something that would be unnecessary if it was as clear-cut as you're arguing). The rules are written from the context of "monsters can advance with class levels (regardless of their advancement line), and every elaborating example given on how to advance monsters supports that. Because the category referenced in the section talking about monsters with an Advancement line of "by character class" is the one listed ("intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape"), not the one you're arguing ("all monsters that can advance by character class, period").

Biggus

2023-09-18, 09:06 AM

regarding the half-dragon lammasu:
It's not the first time that 3.5 brings illegal examples. Example don't make rules. They should represent rules. Wrong representations are not additional rules.
Finally, the general rules presented in that paragraph can be trumped by the specific rules for advancing by HD and by class. The specific rules for class still trump the general rules in this case.

Wow, you're really determined not to admit you're wrong about this, aren't you? The core rulebook says in so many words that they can advance either way, in the very same section as the rules you're quoting. This is a crystal-clear indication of how you're supposed to read the rules.

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-18, 12:44 PM

Due to so many relies in my absence, I'll try to showcase my interpretation with your (somrtimes overlapping) arguments in mind and end with some quotes of you where I want to give a separate response to.

1. Primary Source Rule
Before we can compare rules at all, we should know the primary source. Our topic advancement by class is handled under "Improving Monsters: Class Levels".

2.
Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels.
I think we all agree that this is just a statement and no hard rule. In simple words it's fluff text that gives us some info what is common.
Remind you, easily 90% of any text passage in 3.5 starts with fluff text:
Spells, Feats, Classes, Races, and many other thing follow this pattern. Fluff text first followed by the actual rule.

3.
Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line.
There is no mechanical "humanoid shape" category in the rules for Improving Monsters.
What we have are the mechanical relevant categories "Advance by HD" and "Advance by Class Levels".
Thus the sentence implies: "Creatures that fall into the category Advancement By Class have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line.

You are implying that the entire definition is fluff text. Sorry I don't buy that a definition solely contains fluff text. Because then it would stop being a definition anymore.
The topic here is advance by class level and not intelligent humanoids.

4: Advancement line
Remind you, a creatures advancement line is specific. It may not change the general rules but can only create specific exceptions, if a new subtopic/niche is created.

The monster entry usually describes only the most commonly encountered version of a creature.
The sentence is talking about the overall monster entry and not the advancement line. It's making a statement and ain't telling us any hard-rule. As expected we once again start with fluff text...

But we still get something interesting told and that is that the entry represents the "most commonly encountered version". The MM may present multiple versions and the DM may homebrew other version.
While homebrewing is an option for a (real) DM, it's not an options for RAW (TO) Build Showcases (the root of this discussion thrives from my current PACMAN build).

RAW there are only the printed versions available. Full Stop.
(Again, remind you that this is not a play advice and just a strict RAW point of view here)

The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice. (This is not an absolute limit, but exceptions are extremely rare.) Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die. (See Improving Monsters.)
Finally the text start to talk about the Advancement line. It stats to talk about advancement by HD and explains that the values are not an absolute limit.
After that explanation it follows with a statement (indicator: "often") about intelligent creatures.

No new suptopic was created (thus no permission to trump general rules in the first place) and no changes have been called out. At no point did the rules give you permission to ignore the Advancement entry for that specific version of the monster. As said, a real DM is always free to homebrew altered versions as he sees it fit. But that is not Rules As Written, but "Rules As The DM Dictates" (no offense ;)

Actually, humans don't, since they lack an MM entry entirely. Oh no! Does that mean that by RAW, humans cannot gain class levels?!

Please.
RAW answer: Yeah, a (real) DM would need to fill the gap here (homebrew) by extrapolating the rules we already have to get a human NPC, because we don't have WRITTEN rules for a human Monster/NPC..

Real-Life-Meta answer: Imho the problem why we didn't get the "human monster" entry has much more to do with regulations and laws regarding customer age. Especially back then on 3.5 release at least Germany had very strict regulations. If "humans" would be some kind of possible "enemy to be potentially killed", 3.5 would have gotten a 18+ rating here. I think that this is a much more plausible explanation than to assume that the authors just have been lazy.

Right. And that line is referring to the text I quoted. Which doesn't say that intelligent humanoids can advance by HD, it just say that they commonly do so. So the text refuses to give them permission and calls them all cheaters. That's the RAW of the situation.

My post isn't a light-hearted joke to ease the tension. It's mocking the very idea that the lack of "can" in this section of the rules means they can't, because if that's the case, then there's no point anywhere in the text that says humanoids can advance by class.

(Also, your argument that leveling isn't the same as advancing is...certainly interesting.)
As shown above the actual rule starts right after the fluff sentence. The actual permission comes from the "by character class" entry as stated.

But I'm quoting you actually regarding the Leveling/Advancing difference:

Just think about returning enemy monsters/npc that effectively "level with your PCs lvls".
Do you calculate the XP they did gain from encountering the PCs?
Do you tailor any sidequests for the villain and play em with yourself to "level" the NPC?

NO, we don't do such things. We just take the NPCs and slap the advancements on em.
Leveling != Advancement
I have to admit that I did had this insight very recently but I am very confident with it. It just makes sense imho.

Well, if you wish to argue that Troll Ranger 7 and Troll Hunter Ranger 1 are two entirely different creatures, and therefore by RAW a Troll Hunter can have two first levels in Ranger, be my guest.

Aboleth Mage is the same. It's just that racial HD is not normally advanced once class levels have been taken.

It's wilder than that! By RAW Humans can't be NPCs, because that would require them to be Monsters which they aren't!!
As shown above, we should be settling on "versions" that the MM provides and the "versions" that a DM may homebrew in addition. But those wouldn't be RAW since they are not printed. Regarding humans, see above.

I've seen this topic thrown around in a couple threads recently. I do hope this is just for mental exercise and people arent seriously gathering ammo to tell their DM that his abloeth can't have 2 wizard levels, it either has 10 or none.
The discussion thrived from my RAW TO showcase and has no meaning for actual play. Again said, the DM is free to homebrew different versions, but those will never retroactively be printed into all our books to make em RAW xD

Honestly, it's a little weird to me that the only rules being cited here are from the SRD, when the SRD is well-known to strip out not only rules but clarifying examples that remove ambiguity when it comes to core book weirdness.

For example: the "improving monsters" page (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm) on the SRD says:
...
The general rules for Improving Monster start with giving the DM an overview of the tools he has. This includes Rule ZERO: The DM can make what he wants, but as said, that is not RAW.
The rules often make statements about variant rules and how a DM can adjust (=homebrew) rules. But if he does that, he ain't playing RAW. (again the friendly reminder that the discussion thrives from a pure RAW point of view).

There is a notable example here that was omitted from the SRD:

The babau demon (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/demon.htm) advances by racial Hit Dice. Why, if it cannot ever advance by class levels by the rules, is it then listed with an associated class, and stated as being able to get class levels?
A (RAW) illegal example which ain't even in the rule topic we are concerned with. = zero impact due the Primary Source Rule.

This example is referring to the DM ability to homebrew additional stuff != RAW (Rules As Written)

Wow, you're really determined not to admit you're wrong about this, aren't you? The core rulebook says in so many words that they can advance either way, in the very same section as the rules you're quoting. This is a crystal-clear indication of how you're supposed to read the rules.

Dunno. But let me return the question..

How determined are you to ignore my arguments, since you didn't even refer to any of em while claiming supremacy with a statement about what "the core books say in so many words" without proving any quote and/or mechanical rule arguments along?

This ain't a discussion about WHO is right or wrong, but about WHICH interpretation is right or wrong by RAW.

NontheistCleric

2023-09-18, 01:04 PM

There is no mechanical "humanoid shape" category in the rules for Improving Monsters.
What we have are the mechanical relevant categories "Advance by HD" and "Advance by Class Levels".
Thus the sentence implies: "Creatures that fall into the category Advancement By Class have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line.
These categories you speak of are not the names of any category in the rules. I'm honestly beginning to believe this is an issue of reading comprehension.

You are implying that the entire definition is fluff text. Sorry I don't buy that a definition solely contains fluff text. Because then it would stop being a definition anymore.
It's not exactly fluff text, but it isn't a rule either because it doesn't make any definite statement about anything being allowed or not allowed. It's a description.

The topic here is advance by class level and not intelligent humanoids.
Yes, and there is no rule that says creatures without 'Advancement: By class level' cannot, by virtue of that fact alone, advance by class level.

It just doesn't exist.

RAW answer: Yeah, a (real) DM would need to fill the gap here (homebrew) by extrapolating the rules we already have to get a human NPC, because we don't have WRITTEN rules for a human Monster/NPC..

Real-Life-Meta answer: Imho the problem why we didn't get the "human monster" entry has much more to do with regulations and laws regarding customer age. Especially back then on 3.5 release at least Germany had very strict regulations. If "humans" would be some kind of possible "enemy to be potentially killed", 3.5 would have gotten a 18+ rating here. I think that this is a much more plausible explanation than to assume that the authors just have been lazy.

No, the RAW answer is that humans can take class levels, because that is the explanation that accords with literally everything in any D&D book ever published, and the real-life meta answer is that you didn't interpret the rules right.

This ain't a discussion about WHO is right or wrong, but about WHICH interpretation is right or wrong by RAW.

In this case, you are wrong by RAW.

Chronos

2023-09-18, 03:37 PM

Quoth Gruftzwerg:

There is no mechanical "humanoid shape" category in the rules for Improving Monsters.
Yes there is. It created that category in the immediate preceding sentence.

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-18, 05:18 PM

Yes there is. It created that category in the immediate preceding sentence.

The bold written title "Class Level" is the visual indicator for a category definition.
We are already in the mind of a definition, that so far didn't provided any relevant rule mechanics. And you want me to believe that they want to start to define a new category without any visual formatting indicating that? Normally after the fluff text comes the rule text and the same is here. The rules did give you some fluff overview at first and then explained the defining mechanics of the category: Advancement entry "By Character Class".

Sorry but we use visual formatting/indicators to exactly prevent such problems. So that it is clear when you define something and when you just simply use a word. Any kind of rule, law and even code bases system runs under the same logic. You need to properly define stuff. You can't just mention it somewhere and hope that the people notice the intention of a definition. That would cause that everybody needs to read all the rules to be sure where which words is use how to be able to tell if and how it is defined. And people would argue till the afterlife to solve even the simplest questions.
Since all that doesn't solve anything, better keep relying on visual formatting to be precise.

Beni-Kujaku

2023-09-19, 04:03 AM

Any kind of rule, law and even code bases system runs under the same logic. You need to properly define stuff. You can't just mention it somewhere and hope that the people notice the intention of a definition. That would cause that everybody needs to read all the rules to be sure where which words is use how to be able to tell if and how it is defined. And people would argue till the afterlife to solve even the simplest questions.

If that's what you want, then maybe d&d 3.5 isn't the game for you. The full game is full of rules sprinkled in the middle of flavor text, and vice-versa. And would you look at that, people do argue till the afterlife for the simplest questions! Isn't that why we're here? Are you not entertained?

Anyway, using your terms and fully following RAW, the definition for "Advancement: by character class" is "advances most commonly by class level". That doesn't give permission to advance by class level. It only says it's the most common method. There's no "Creatures with 'advancement: by character class' are allowed to advance by class level" in this "definition". It must mean then, either that these creatures cannot advance by character class (which means that no creature can advance by character class by RAW), which, if you want to go that way, sure, any PC is technically homebrew after all, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense. Or, it means that the permission was given elsewhere, earlier in the text. Do you agree with me on this?

And, if you look earlier (actually, the immediately preceding sentence): "However, there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters can be created using a typical creature as the foundation: by adding character classes, increasing a monster’s Hit Dice, or by adding a template to a monster. "
No category, no, nothing. Which means any "typical creature" can be improved by any of these methods. At least, that's what this sentence says. Like with any other rule, there can be limitations that are added later, such as the 3 Int rule in Savage Species for playable characters, or the "the Advancement line shows how tough a creature can become in terms of Hit Dice", but that's what they are: limitations on an otherwise all-encompassing rule. The all-encompassing rule in question being "any creature can advance by class levels, by hit dice, or by template". That is all. That is the first sentence, and an exceedingly simple one.

Chronos

2023-09-19, 04:17 PM

Quoth Gruftzwerg:

The bold written title "Class Level" is the visual indicator for a category definition.
Bwuh? So "Class level" is the name for a category of monsters? Does that mean that Elf is a Class Level? Because that would have all sorts of weird implications in the rules.

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-21, 12:46 AM

If that's what you want, then maybe d&d 3.5 isn't the game for you. The full game is full of rules sprinkled in the middle of flavor text, and vice-versa. And would you look at that, people do argue till the afterlife for the simplest questions! Isn't that why we're here? Are you not entertained?
"rules sprinkled in the middle of flavor text" is the reason why we differentiate between Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI) and actual advice for real games at your table. Sorry but it's the other way around here. If you dislike that we have these 3 categories when we talk about 3.5, then maybe 3.5 is not a game for you ;)

Anyway, using your terms and fully following RAW, the definition for "Advancement: by character class" is "advances most commonly by class level". That doesn't give permission to advance by class level. It only says it's the most common method. There's no "Creatures with 'advancement: by character class' are allowed to advance by class level" in this "definition". It must mean then, either that these creatures cannot advance by character class (which means that no creature can advance by character class by RAW), which, if you want to go that way, sure, any PC is technically homebrew after all, but I don't think it makes a lot of sense. Or, it means that the permission was given elsewhere, earlier in the text. Do you agree with me on this?
I provided with quotes why this is not the case. If you want me to change my mind, I kindly request that you at least try to partially reply to my arguments. Because from my point of view, I have debunked that the "Advancement:"-line ain't FLUFF TEXT! It's a STAT/VARIABLE and thus has a MECHANICAL IMPACT (sorry for caps, but since you totally ignored my points in your reply, I thought I would point out the main argument here).

And, if you look earlier (actually, the immediately preceding sentence): "However, there are several methods by which extraordinary or unique monsters can be created using a typical creature as the foundation: by adding character classes, increasing a monster’s Hit Dice, or by adding a template to a monster. "
This is referring to the option (!) the DM has to homebrew (!) different versions of a monster (or to design entirely new monsters). Remind you that RAW (rules as written/printed) only showcase you the most common version of a monster.
While a DM has the permission to homebrew different versions, they will never be RAW, since they aren't printed.
Legal by RAW, but they ain't RAW (because it's homebrew). Try to see the difference here. This is a logical problem that thrives from allowing a DM to make his own rules that are not RAW.

Bwuh? So "Class level" is the name for a category of monsters? Does that mean that Elf is a Class Level? Because that would have all sorts of weird implications in the rules.

I dunno who you did come up with that conclusion? (I really mean it)

The relevant topics and their hierarchy here is:
(Monsters > ) Improving Monster > Class Level

Thus "Class Level" is one of the categories for "Improving Monsters" the (sub)topic we are currently in. The main topic monsters remains mostly untouched (since the rule solely talk about Improving Monsters here).

I think that "Class Level" is a fitting category name for an option for "Improving Monsters".

I have to genuinely ask (no offense here), if you have problems to see the hierarchy here? (or if this was meant as a joke?). Imho the defined and relevant topics are obvious here. If you really struggle with these kinds of things, I would kindly offer my help.

rel

2023-09-21, 01:29 AM

My reading is a monster can advance by RHD or class levels.

I'd allow a player the option too, but it probably isn't a good idea.

loky1109

2023-09-21, 02:46 AM

"rules sprinkled in the middle of flavor text" is the reason why we differentiate between Rules as Written (RAW), Rules as Intended (RAI) and actual advice for real games at your table. Sorry but it's the other way around here. If you dislike that we have these 3 categories when we talk about 3.5, then maybe 3.5 is not a game for you ;)
Sorry, but this doesn't work. You can't talk about RAW if you don't know what is rules and what isn't.

This is referring to the option (!) the DM has to homebrew (!) different versions of a monster (or to design entirely new monsters). Remind you that RAW (rules as written/printed) only showcase you the most common version of a monster.
While a DM has the permission to homebrew different versions, they will never be RAW, since they aren't printed.
Legal by RAW, but they ain't RAW (because it's homebrew). Try to see the difference here. This is a logical problem that thrives from allowing a DM to make his own rules that are not RAW.
It's your opinion about this. I don't see here nothing about homebrew, I even don't see definition of word "version."

The relevant topics and their hierarchy here is:
(Monsters > ) Improving Monster > Class Level
Who said that?

You couldn't use your sacred cow - PSR at all. Why? Because we don't have RAW hierarchy of topics. We even don't have well-defined topics. We should fill in the blanks ourselves. And you made your version of topics and hierarchy. But it is only version.
What RAW are you talking about?

NontheistCleric

2023-09-21, 03:58 AM

Gruftzwerg, this is getting absurd. How can you appeal to the rules on advancing monsters while also claiming that advanced monsters are not RAW and that any advanced monster is homebrew? By your logic, the only way to have advanced monsters by RAW is for the Monster Manual to include a separate statblock for every version of every monster, even if only separated by a single HD.

Beni-Kujaku

2023-09-21, 03:58 AM

I provided with quotes why this is not the case. If you want me to change my mind, I kindly request that you at least try to partially reply to my arguments.
You didn't provide quotes that say "creatures with Advancement: by class level can advance by class levels and others can't". If I'm not mistaken, then your argument was "this category" only refers to "advances by class level" and not to "most commonly", or "reasonably humanoid creature". Which is an interpretation and isn't proven unless you already assume that

the "Advancement:"-line ain't FLUFF TEXT! It's a STAT/VARIABLE and thus has a MECHANICAL IMPACT

Assuming this is baseless. Taking half a sentence and saying that the rest is irrelevant, even ignoring the adverb is just wrong. "Reasonably humanoid creatures most commonly advance by class level" cannot be cut in two, it's a full meaningful clause. You cannot say that "reasonably" is fluff and "humanoid" isn't, like you cannot say that "most commonly" is fluff and "advance by class level' isn't.

And since the Alignment line is fluff text (since even "always XX" can have exceptions), there's not even a reason to assume that every line in the statblock has mechanical relevance (beyond being a guideline on how to roleplay and advance a monster).

This is referring to the option (!) the DM has to homebrew (!) different versions of a monster (or to design entirely new monsters). Remind you that RAW (rules as written/printed) only showcase you the most common version of a monster.
Like I said, it's okay for you to consider this homebrew, but then all advanced versions of monsters are homebrew, since the DM created them. And all player characters are homebrew, since they don't stem from the monster entry with a Warrior level.

While a DM has the permission to homebrew different versions, they will never be RAW, since they aren't printed.
Legal by RAW, but they ain't RAW (because it's homebrew). Try to see the difference here. This is a logical problem that thrives from allowing a DM to make his own rules that are not RAW.
There's no difference between "legal by RAW" and "RAW". Taking Power Attack as my 3rd level feat is RAW, because it's legal by RAW to do it. In a game all about leveling up characters and making choices, if something is said to be legal, then it's RAW.

Anyway, you haven't addressed the existence of creatures with level adjustment and no "Advancement: by class level". Are they homebrew too?
And you haven't addressed either the "These methods are not mutually exclusive—it’s possible for a monster with a template to be improved by both increasing its Hit Dice and adding character class levels.". Because it means that a creature can advance both by HD and class levels, which you don't seem to take as a possibility since you exclude creatures with HD advancement from taking class levels, and there's no HD advancement on creatures with "Advancement: by class levels".

Does this sentence mean that only creatures with a template can gain class levels? Should I start applying Amphibious to all my monsters if I want to follow RAW?
Or is it another "this is possible, but only by the DM, so it's homebrew"? Of course it's only possible if the DM does it, monsters are in the hands of the DM. Is a pit fiend that uses its Invisibility SLA homebrew? It's not in its tactics round-by-round. Is trying to use Teleportation before round 5 "legal by RAW, but not RAW"? No, it's one of their abilities, but it's the DM that chooses to use it. Like one of the abilities of monsters is to be improved with class levels, templates and HD. It's still the DM that chooses if any monster does it, of course, but it's definitely written right there, if you read either the full sentence that you're quoting instead of only a few words, or if you read sentences around it without dismissing them as fluff. You can't dismiss any word going against what you think as fluff.

Zombimode

2023-09-21, 04:04 AM

Remind you, easily 90% of any text passage in 3.5 starts with fluff text:
Spells, Feats, Classes, Races, and many other thing follow this pattern. Fluff text first followed by the actual rule.

And let me remind you that in D&D 3.5 there is no fluff text that is somehow separate from the rules. That concept exists in D&D 4e or in Magic: The Gathering. But not in D&D 3.5.
That means: you can't just ignore parts of the rules "because they are just fluff text". If you ignore the more descriptive parts of the rules, you are houseruling.

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-22, 04:21 AM

Sorry, but this doesn't work. You can't talk about RAW if you don't know what is rules and what isn't.
I never implied something else. You first always need to see if something is meant as rule text or as fluff text.

Just remind you of your example with the spell Rouse from PHBII (p. 123) which was printed dysfunctional because the actual rules where lacking (and where partially hidden in fluff text). It needed to be updated via the ERRATA to have any mechanical impact by RAW.
Imho I can very well differentiate between fluff text and actual rules. I don't know what you are implying here since the quote you picked didn't imply anything in that regard.

It's your opinion about this. I don't see here nothing about homebrew, I even don't see definition of word "version."
It's not an opinion. The 3.5 rules encourage the DM on multiple instances to alter the rules as he fit. Be it variant rules (e.g. alternative BAB/Save rules for multiclassing) or to create his own content (e.g. create altered or entirely new monster).
While "Variant Rules" are still at least printed and thus are "rules as written" themselves, this is not the case for DM created contend. While a DM has the permission by RAW to create contend, that content will never be printed into the books and thus will never by RAW themselves. Just because the permission is RAW based doesn't turn the creation into RAW here. This is a logical problem that occurs because RAW only cares for the stuff that is printed and a DM's homebrew content will never be printed into our 3.5 books.

Regarding "version":
Yeah it is undefined. But that doesn't change that it still has a mechanical impact. Do the rules need to define "may" so that a phrase like "you may do X" makes mechanically sense to you? Ain't "may" mechanically different than "must"? Just because a word is undefined doesn't mean it does nothing. It sole means that you can't assume that word means always the same in 3.5. You have to see undefined words always in context to be able to interpret the intent of the author.

Who said that?

These (Monster; Improving Monster; Class Level) all have a clear visual indicator to show that they are defined (e.g. bold written followed by text or as title of a paragraph...). As such I can use the PSR to sort em into a hierarchy to be able to compare which rule can trump the other.

Nobody needs to say it. It's what we always do when we compare rules. You look up the hierarchy the PSR creates and apply it to get the results. Nothing new here.

You couldn't use your sacred cow - PSR at all. Why? Because we don't have RAW hierarchy of topics. We even don't have well-defined topics. We should fill in the blanks ourselves. And you made your version of topics and hierarchy. But it is only version.
What RAW are you talking about?
I am using it constantly. If you want me to point it out for you every single time I use it I can do it. But I thought I would spare you and the rest of teh forum the pain of reading PSR in every other sentence you know.
Don't you worry, your wish is my command. I shall point out whenever I use of the PSR for an argument more frequently once again. All praise the glory of the PSR...

Gruftzwerg, this is getting absurd. How can you appeal to the rules on advancing monsters while also claiming that advanced monsters are not RAW and that any advanced monster is homebrew? By your logic, the only way to have advanced monsters by RAW is for the Monster Manual to include a separate statblock for every version of every monster, even if only separated by a single HD.
As pointed out to loky, in 3.5 the rules give the DM the permission on multiple occasions to create his own contend. This is referring to that possibility. But DM created contend while being RAW legal ain't RAW itself. It's a logical problem with how RAW is defined: Rules As WRITTEN. The DM has the WRITTEN permission for homebrewing stuff, but that stuff doesn't suddenly become WRITTEN into your books (personally, I wouldn't allow a DM to make additional notes into my books you know xD)

You didn't provide quotes that say "creatures with Advancement: by class level can advance by class levels and others can't". If I'm not mistaken, then your argument was "this category" only refers to "advances by class level" and not to "most commonly", or "reasonably humanoid creature". Which is an interpretation and isn't proven unless you already assume that
Sorry but it's the other way around. You have to prove that "others" have the permission to advance "by class". But the rules in the primary source (Improving Monsters: Class Level) clearly deny this.

And do I really need to prove that a definition needs to have a mechanical rule text part (besides from fluff text) that is referring to what it intends to define?
To define something your definition should be talking about the thing you try to define. Simple logic if you ask me.

I hope for the sake of sanity that this is enough proof.

Besides from the fluff text at the beginning (which is a simple general statement), the text talks mainly about the topic it tries to define here: Improving Monsters > Class Level.

Assuming this is baseless. Taking half a sentence and saying that the rest is irrelevant, even ignoring the adverb is just wrong. "Reasonably humanoid creatures most commonly advance by class level" cannot be cut in two, it's a full meaningful clause. You cannot say that "reasonably" is fluff and "humanoid" isn't, like you cannot say that "most commonly" is fluff and "advance by class level' isn't.
"most commonly" is a straight indicator that this can't be hard rule but that it is just making a (fluff) statement about what is generally common. It's like most race descriptions say something like "men are most of the time taller" means that all men are taller than all women of that race. These are just fluff texts without any mechanical impact for INDIVIDUALS. Most Commonly != Individual

And since the Alignment line is fluff text (since even "always XX" can have exceptions), there's not even a reason to assume that every line in the statblock has mechanical relevance (beyond being a guideline on how to roleplay and advance a monster).
The alignment rule exception relies once again on different versions a DM may hoembrew. While RAW gives permission to it, they don't become PRINTED rules.

Like I said, it's okay for you to consider this homebrew, but then all advanced versions of monsters are homebrew, since the DM created them. And all player characters are homebrew, since they don't stem from the monster entry with a Warrior level.
No because those advanced versions are printed options. The Troll Hunter and Aboleth Mage are printed versions and not homebrew version made by the DM. There is a clear difference here imho.
If the DM wants to create a Beholder Mage with a typical true beholder, he needs to homebrew a different version with "Advancement: by Character Class" first. Because the printed RAW version only allows for advancing by HD.
The DM is free to do that, but it doesn't become printed material (RAW), but is simply homebrew content that is legal by RAW but ain't RAW itself.

As said multiple times now.. Just because the DM has the permission by RAW to create homebrew contend doesn't make it printed contend..

There's no difference between "legal by RAW" and "RAW". Taking Power Attack as my 3rd level feat is RAW, because it's legal by RAW to do it. In a game all about leveling up characters and making choices, if something is said to be legal, then it's RAW.
see above..

Anyway, you haven't addressed the existence of creatures with level adjustment and no "Advancement: by class level". Are they homebrew too?
And you haven't addressed either the "These methods are not mutually exclusive—it’s possible for a monster with a template to be improved by both increasing its Hit Dice and adding character class levels.". Because it means that a creature can advance both by HD and class levels, which you don't seem to take as a possibility since you exclude creatures with HD advancement from taking class levels, and there's no HD advancement on creatures with "Advancement: by class levels".
I have addressed this multiple times. Even in this post.
This is talking effectively about RULE ZERO.
3.5 gives the DM permission for homebrew content. Who would have thought that... (sorry, but it is getting annoying on my part to repeat it over and over again..)

Does this sentence mean that only creatures with a template can gain class levels? Should I start applying Amphibious to all my monsters if I want to follow RAW?
If you want to torture yourself and your group by playing strict RAW that is on you. I made clear from the beginning that my opinion of RAW ain't a play advice for your table. This discussion thrived from a RAW TO build to remind you and not from actual play.

Nobody, not even RAW forces you to play RAW. The rules simply imply that RAW is the most common base to start from and allows a DM to make adjustments (homebrew content and houserules) as he sees fit. But these altered and added things will never become Rules As Written.

And let me remind you that in D&D 3.5 there is no fluff text that is somehow separate from the rules. That concept exists in D&D 4e or in Magic: The Gathering. But not in D&D 3.5.
That means: you can't just ignore parts of the rules "because they are just fluff text". If you ignore the more descriptive parts of the rules, you are houseruling.

The FAQ also differentiates between flavor text and actual rule text:

At the simplest level, the Sage would suggest that any ability whose
name includes the word pain, or whose flavor or rules text
clearly spell out the infliction of pain, should fall into that
category
A clear evidence that the rules have been written differentiating between actual rule text and flavor text. It's just that in 3.5 most of the time the flavor text just simply ain't part of how you are supposed to read rules.

I agree that 3.5 ain't always 100% clear about its fluff/flavor text but if you assume otherwise, you'll only earn a mountain of dysfunctions all over the place.
But thankfully we most of the time have indicators (either words that show the intend or if something is written in italic) that help to differentiate if something is intended as mechanical rule or as simple statement.

And sometimes they even indicate it without straight calling it flavor/fluff text. E.g the rules to read Feat descriptions:

Description of what the feat does or represents in plain language.
Plain Language is meant as opposite to "mechanically precise rule language" here. It means it is oversimplified language or in other words just simple fluff/flavor text that doesn't needs to be 100% precise.

___________
PS: Sorry for the lengthy post, but it is as it is. I had much stuff to respond to.. ;)

NontheistCleric

2023-09-22, 04:51 AM

loky1109

2023-09-22, 05:39 AM

Imho I can very well differentiate between fluff text and actual rules.
Imho, you can't. Nobody can't. There isn't hard rules for this.

These (Monster; Improving Monster; Class Level) all have a clear visual indicator to show that they are defined (e.g. bold written followed by text or as title of a paragraph...)
How could you be sure what these indications mean?

It's not an opinion. The 3.5 rules encourage the DM on multiple instances to alter the rules as he fit. Be it variant rules (e.g. alternative BAB/Save rules for multiclassing) or to create his own content (e.g. create altered or entirely new monster).
While "Variant Rules" are still at least printed and thus are "rules as written" themselves, this is not the case for DM created contend. While a DM has the permission by RAW to create contend, that content will never be printed into the books and thus will never by RAW themselves. Just because the permission is RAW based doesn't turn the creation into RAW here. This is a logical problem that occurs because RAW only cares for the stuff that is printed and a DM's homebrew content will never be printed into our 3.5 books.
This means all your TO builds are homebrew. As like as all builds at all.

Yeah it is undefined. But that doesn't change that it still has a mechanical impact.
Yah, there is impact, I agree, but we couldn't what this impact is.

Do the rules need to define "may" so that a phrase like "you may do X" makes mechanically sense to you? Ain't "may" mechanically different than "must"?
Do you know difference between noun and verb? Do you understand difference between just a noun that mechanically do nothing (and can be freely changed for synonym) and term? If you say it's important word and it have mechanical impact it's term. Terms should be defined to work.

You look up the hierarchy the PSR creates and apply it to get the results. Nothing new here.
I couldn't look at something that doesn't exist.

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-24, 01:48 AM

Are you joking? Rules as Written includes–and has always included– things that are not actually printed in ink in the books but that the rules explicitly make possible. No person with the barest comprehension of context would ever claim what you are claiming.
That interpretation would make all homebrewed content and houserules RAW... sorry, I don't buy that. Just because the rules allow the DM to adjust anything as he sees fit doesn't make it printed contend. The "Written" in RAW is referring to official books, errate, webcontend and stuff like that and not to the stuff the your DM writes...

RAW is simply a term people in TTRPG optimization circles use to mean certain things. It's not some law of the universe. The way you are using it implies that you have misunderstood the way in which I daresay every other person on this forum uses it.
I agree that the definition did thrived mostly from the community.
But do you intend to change the definition? If yes, you should bring some reasonable arguments why the definition should be changed in this specific scenario (because I doubt we can redefine RAW for the rest of the games/world).

If you ask me, I don't see any reason to change the definition here.

The issue we have here is just a specific area of the rules where the theoretical concepts (definitions) RAW and RAI overlap only partially. We have written rules (RAW) that allows a DM to make houserules and homebrewed content (RAI but not RAW). While the action of making your own content (houserules/homebrew) is within RAW, the content itself ain't RAW, since it ain't printed in any official source.

If you want to play this inane word game, nothing at all is RAW because the books are printed, not written.
Then replace RAW with RAP^^
Rules As Printed and we are fine.

Really, pls think about the consequences of your suggestion here. If I follow you logic, where and why do you set the border? At which point it stops being RAW if it is not homebrewed content? Is everything RAW? Should we all post our houserules now to see what RAW is?

While you mention "word games" I was reminded of many of my childhood. And guess what, all have logic based rules. And here it is the same. The word game called RAW is simply logic and nothing else (I'm not implying that 3.5 RAW is logically perfect. Don't get me wrong here. We all know of it's issues and shortcomings).

Imho, you can't. Nobody can't. There isn't hard rules for this.
If you wanna insist on that, then this thread ain't for you. Here people who assume that we can read and interpret RAW have gathered. If you wanna discuss that nobody can read RAW, make a separate thread about that and see how it goes.

How could you be sure what these indications mean?
As said multiple times, everywhere where you have rules, laws and code you need to properly show your intention that you want to (re-)define a word. That is non-written rule for writing rules, laws and code. It thrives from pure logic, since without properly showing intentions to define stuff you end up arguing when and if they intended to define a words somewhere. You would need all rules, even those not related to see if something is somehow defined. And you couldn't use any word without defining it. And words like "you" who are totally dependent on context would suddenly be defined too. But to what? You singular? Or to you (and your allies) as plural?
I hope that you can see that without properly shown intentions to define stuff, it doesn't work. Logic demands it, since otherwise your logical construct falls apart and becomes dysfunctional.
If we don't assume this, you can't have any kind of functional rules, laws or code at all... it's that elementary.

This means all your TO builds are homebrew. As like as all builds at all.

As said, if you wanna ignore that all rules, laws and code rely on this, you won't come far in any rule discussion. You effectively make ANY interpretation invalid. "The books are just eyecandy. We can do whatever we want to and still pretend that we play by the rules, because rules don't exist". Sorry for the exaggeration but that how your argument feels on my end here.

Yah, there is impact, I agree, but we couldn't what this impact is.
Let us only care for the impact that is has for our discussion at the moment:
The monster manual provides us with printed versions of monsters. Those represents the most common specimen including their option on how to advance.

If the DM intends to change any of the "base stats", he would be creating a different version, unless the change was made with another (rule) resource like templates that represent a separate kind of build option compared to advancing. By making his own version he has created non-printed homebrew stuff. While the rules encourages the DM to always adjust the game to his needs, his houserules and homebrewed content will never be printed contend. Those things will always be RAI and not RAW.
Just because it is within the intend of the printed rules doesn't turn it into a printed rule.

Do you know difference between noun and verb? Do you understand difference between just a noun that mechanically do nothing (and can be freely changed for synonym) and term? If you say it's important word and it have mechanical impact it's term. Terms should be defined to work.
They are defined by the English language. That's a definition too. In absence of a 3.5 specific definition, you fall back to the general English definition.
And as shown above, it's a good thing that not every word automatically gets a 3.5 specific definition, because that would solely cause a disaster and break the logical construct that we try to create with the rules.
How you interpret "you" within the rules is relying mostly on context 3.5. This allows "you" to be used for only "yourself" and for "you and your allies", if the context was talking about a your group of allies.

Just because "you" lacks a 3.5 specific definition doesn't stop it from having a mechanical impact depending on the context.
Same here with version. The context (as shown) helps us to interpret "version" and realize that a change in the "Advancement:" line would effective demand a separate "version". And since that version ain't official and available for everybody (since it ain't printed in all books), it can only be homebrewed content.

I couldn't look at something that doesn't exist.
The Primary Source Rule exists. If you deny it's existence or have problems to interpret it into rule mechanics, that's your shortcoming. Pls stop pretending that it doesn't exist. And just because you have a logical problem to accept it doesn't mean that everybody else feels the same.
Remind you, without the PSR you don't have "Specific Trump General" and thus you wouldn't be even able to use simple things like Power Attack because it is in conflict with the general attacking rules.
You are constantly using the PSR without noticing it, because without it you couldn't solve any rule conflict.

NontheistCleric

2023-09-24, 03:05 AM

rel

2023-09-27, 04:14 AM

With 2 pages of discussion, it's obvious the rules are ambiguous.
To help those looking for some sort of community consensus to help inform their own reading, we have

11 supporting the 'monsters can advance by class' reading:
JNAProductions
NontheistCleric
Beni-Kujaku
Metastachydium
Biggus
Telonius
Chronos
Forrestfire
rel
loky1109
AvatarVecna

1 supporting the 'monsters cannot advance by class reading:
Gruftzwerg

And a handful of others that chimed in with jokes or arguments but didn't venture an unambiguous opinion.

Zanos

2023-09-27, 12:18 PM

Sorry, to clarify, I also think that the argument presented by Gruftzwerg has no merit; I just didn't care to make the argument because I did not think I could convince him of anything. Feel free to add me to the "not Gruftzwerg" list.

AvatarVecna

2023-09-27, 02:02 PM

I'm actually in a third category of "by RAW nobody can advance by class" :smalltongue:

NontheistCleric

2023-09-27, 03:39 PM

With 2 pages of discussion, it's obvious the rules are ambiguous.

I don't know that it's that ambiguous, considering that there's one voice with (in my opinion) rather questionable logic against an overwhelming majority.

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-28, 12:18 AM

Don't be disingenuous, Gruftzwerg. There is a clear difference between the ability of the DM to make whatever houserules or homebrew they want and the fact that the rules provide for modification of certain values (up to and including monster statblocks, PC stats and so on) within clearly defined parameters.

Yes. The DM is allowed to change the rules to whatever they want, if and when they like. That is different–very different–from rules printed in the books that provide specific mechanisms for changing things. The first instance is explicitly going beyond the bounds of the published rules and is not RAW. The second is not, and thus is RAW.

Those are the boundaries any reasonable person would conform to when discussing RAW. You are the one changing definitions, not me.
Don't assume that I am not ingenuous here. I have no reason for that. This is not a "real table game decision" here, but about pure RAW interpretation. I have nothing to lose or gain here.

Try to differentiate between:
a) RAW and housrules
&
b) printed contend (RAW) and homebrewed content (not RAW!)

Just because something is based on RAW and ain't a houserule doesn't make it printed "content".

As said, RAW allows the DM to make his own stuff, like creating different "versions" of monsters or even entirely new monsters. But just because we have rules that allow a DM to homebrew doesn't make it printed RAW content.

If you change any of a monster's statistics, you have created a new version of that monster and only use the RAW version as base for your homebrew creation.

Remind you that we are talking about a pure technical/mechanical term here: "Rules As Written"
It's application needs to be strict to make any sense.
As soon as you change any stat, you aren't using the Rules As Written.

All arguments that have been presented against my point of view try to degrade the entire (!) definition of the "Advancement:" line into fluff text. Sorry I don't buy that. Stats need a mechanical meaning, otherwise they become just eyecandy without any mechanical impact.

With 2 pages of discussion, it's obvious the rules are ambiguous.
To help those looking for some sort of community consensus to help inform their own reading, we have

11 supporting the 'monsters can advance by class' reading:
JNAProductions
NontheistCleric
Beni-Kujaku
Metastachydium
Biggus
Telonius
Chronos
Forrestfire
rel
loky1109
AvatarVecna

1 supporting the 'monsters cannot advance by class reading:
Gruftzwerg

And a handful of others that chimed in with jokes or arguments but didn't venture an unambiguous opinion.
&

I don't know that it's that ambiguous, considering that there's one voice with (in my opinion) rather questionable logic against an overwhelming majority.

The majority minority joker won't work here. This is not a democratic real game decision here. We have a pure mechanical discussion here and the majority bears no weight here. Remind you that whenever anything new in life is discovered (even in science), it always stats with one person arguing for his position against the common knowledge of everybody else. And if I wouldn't able to cause this kind of situations in the debates, I would be doing a lame job with my RAW TO creations. ;)

NontheistCleric

2023-09-28, 12:54 AM

If you change a stat according to how the Rules as Written say you are allowed to change it (and by this I mean 'gives specific mechanical bounds for the change'), it is still Rules as Written.

This is the definition the overwhelming majority has always used the term to mean–and in this case, the majority does matter, because language is a public endeavor.

Go create your own definition if you like, Gruftzwerg, but I don't think you will convince anyone else that your demarcation of where the rules end and homebrew begins is a useful one. The only reason you are 'causing this kind of situation' is that you refuse to abandon a position that is by all reasonable accounts untenable out of pure stubborness.

glass

2023-09-28, 11:59 AM

I don't know that it's that ambiguous, considering that there's one voice with (in my opinion) rather questionable logic against an overwhelming majority.To be fair to Gruftzwerg, it is not impossible for the one to be right and the many to be wrong (although I am pretty sure that is not what is happening here). So a lot of people disagreeing is not automatically dispositive of their position, although it might cause them to pause and reassess it.

Many years ago, in a completely different forum and talking about a completely different game (40k 5e), I thought I was that lone correct poster. Across multiple pages and multiple days (don't ask me for the exact numbers, it was years ago), people kept telling my I was wrong for spurious reasons. And I kept easily knocking down their nonsense arguments - really minor variations of the same nonsense argument. Obviously, by this point I was feeling like my position was pretty unassailable. But then, three or four days later someone else came into the thread and delivered an argument that I could not easily knock down - they pointed out something I had missed in the rule in question. They were right, I had been wrong (every one else had also been wrong of course - they had lucked into the right answer, but had been wrong about the reason).

Of course, in the face of an actually persuasive argument, I immediately changed my position, so both of us were right. That's the nice thing about being reasonable - you always end up on the right side, whichever side you started on! Since that thread, I try to remind myself to always consider each new opposing argument on its merits, and not let it be tarred by the weaker arguments on the same side.

It involved the interaction of a Space Marine Captain (or was it Chapter Master?)'s Orbital Bombardment and the Relentless special rule. Orbital Bombardment was (effectively) a one shot gun, Relentless let you move but still count as stationary for shooting. My initial position was that if you had Relentless, you could move and still fire off your Orbital Bombardment. The initial counterarguments were all of the form "but you actually moved", so I would (patiently, at first) lay out that yes you actually moved, but that doesn't matter. Because when Orbital Bombardment checks if you were stationary, and Relentless pops up to say "yes" regardless of whether you actually were or not. And were that not the case, that part of Relentless would never do anything at all because any time it was relevant you would have actually moved - OB may be fluffed as calling down the shot from a strike cruiser in orbit, but in mechanical terms it is a gun statline like any other. In this respect, it works just like a missile launcher.

And I would have been right, except (being away from my rulebook) I had missed Relentless lets you counts as stationary for firing "Heavy and Rapid-fire" weapons, and OB is Ordnance - that is what the later-arriving poster pointed out to get me to flip my position. A lot of virtual ink would have been spared if someone had pointed that out on day 1, page 1, but nobody did!

If you change a stat according to how the Rules as Written say you are allowed to change it (and by this I mean 'gives specific mechanical bounds for the change'), it is still Rules as Written.Indeed. While there is a certain amount of GM fiat (or perhaps more accurately, "adventure designer's fiat") involved in a particular NPC or monster existing at all, that amount of fiat does not vary depending on whether or how the monster is advanced. IOW, there is no RAW that says the PCs must encounter a beholder; it is enough that the RAW says that they can. And whether that beholder is unadvanced, advanced by HD, has Beholder Mage levels or has Paladin* levels, its existence is equally RAW (still not required, still permitted).

The same logic applies to PCs: There is no rulebook anywhere that says Evan Thorngage, 13th-level PF1 Druid exists. But that does not make him homebrew - RAW permits him to exist, and that is sufficient (he is a PFS character so there are arguably some house rules involved depending on how you characterise the changes to the main game that PFS makes. But definitely no hombrew involved.)

Unfortunately, I cannot add much in the way of direct rebuttal to Gruftzwerg's points - as other people have already pointed out, his rules quotes simply do not say what he says they say. But I did want to comment on one particular thing:

Remind you, without the PSR you don't have "Specific Trump General" and thus you wouldn't be even able to use simple things like Power Attack because it is in conflict with the general attacking rules.
You are constantly using the PSR without noticing it, because without it you couldn't solve any rule conflict.This is wrong: Specific Beats General is just how rules systems work - it is pretty much the only way they can work. The PSR is another tool for resolving rules conflicts on top of that. SBG does not need to be specifically stated, although it is rarely a bad idea.

* Assuming of course it is LG; Paladin levels on an (more typical) evil beholder would be an example of houserules and/or homebrew.

loky1109

2023-09-28, 12:12 PM

Gruftzwerg, your point about RAW and homebrew maybe will be stronger, if RAW has official definition and is official term, but it's community self-made "term".

NontheistCleric

2023-09-28, 08:32 PM

To be fair to Gruftzwerg, it is not impossible for the one to be right and the many to be wrong (although I am pretty sure that is not what is happening here). So a lot of people disagreeing is not automatically dispositive of their position, although it might cause them to pause and reassess it.

True. My point in the text you quoted was not to say we must be right because we have more people on our side, but that the issue was not as 'obviously ambiguous' as rel said, because a single person with questionable logic arguing against a well-justified majority opinion does not automatically give that person's argument merit (and thus would fail to introduce meaningful ambiguity).

That said, my point on how the majority can legitimately determine how RAW is defined and used still stands, as a matter of language.

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-29, 02:47 AM

I slightly changed the order of how the quotes have been posted for a better read flow of my response.

Gruftzwerg, your point about RAW and homebrew maybe will be stronger, if RAW has official definition and is official term, but it's community self-made "term".
But that is what the discussion here is build upon. This discussion thrived from a RAW TO build showcase of mine. Something that is totally relying on the communities definition of RAW.

Again as reminder (for anyone who accidentally steps here in ^^), this is not a play advice and has NO IMPACT for actual play.

The sole relevance with actual table play is that we often use the terms RAW and RAI (even in real table games) to communicate about rules.

Assume a crazy DM would make the statement that he plays "strict 100% RAW". Would you assume to see any non printed creatures in the game? The rules clearly allow for homebrew creations and to alter monsters if the DM wants it. But that doesn't turn it into RAW content.

Just because you use Rules As Written to make your homebrew creations doesn't make the creation itself into Rules As Written("printed").
This is logical problem of the term itself. It expects no houserules and no homebrew. Creating an unprinted RAW legal version of a monster is still homebrew and not printed.

I have no intention of stopping any real DM to make different "versions" of a monster. I'm merly pointing out that the theoretical mechanical construct RAW excludes that stuff.

If all our homebrew creations would be RAW, we would have problems to talk about RAW because we would first need to show each other all our creations... Sorry but this is logical insanity and not the intention behind the definition of RAW. WE use the term to explicitly exclude such stuff.

If I make a RAW TO showcase, do you expect/allow me to insert homebrew stuff? Is that the new standard of RAW???
(no offense here. just a minor joke to lighten up the mood.)

If you change a stat according to how the Rules as Written say you are allowed to change it (and by this I mean 'gives specific mechanical bounds for the change'), it is still Rules as Written.
As locky, you are assuming that just because something is based on Rules As Written that it becomes Rules As Written itself.
But that is contrary to the definition of RAW. Only official sources may alter or add to RAW. But none of our homebrew creations are official sources.

This is the definition the overwhelming majority has always used the term to mean–and in this case, the majority does matter, because language is a public endeavor.
I have shown why such an interpretation would be logically dysfunctional. The main purpose of RAW is explicitly to exclude stuff like that.

Go create your own definition if you like, Gruftzwerg, but I don't think you will convince anyone else that your demarcation of where the rules end and homebrew begins is a useful one. The only reason you are 'causing this kind of situation' is that you refuse to abandon a position that is by all reasonable accounts untenable out of pure stubborness.
This has nothing to do with stubbornness, nor with me trying to create a new definition. I'm sole arguing about wrong preceptions of what RAW is here. It makes logically no sense to assume that RAW would include homebrew creations.

I ask you a similar question as loky: What would you think would happen if I would include homebrew into my RAW showcases here?
"I bet my A§§ would be burned on the biggest pyre the forum has ever seen."

To be fair to Gruftzwerg, it is not impossible for the one to be right and the many to be wrong (although I am pretty sure that is not what is happening here). So a lot of people disagreeing is not automatically dispositive of their position, although it might cause them to pause and reassess it.
I'm open for change of mind if I get any arguments that would impact my arguments. It's just that the "minority-majority joker" is just annoying and doesn't help the discussion imho.

Indeed. While there is a certain amount of GM fiat (or perhaps more accurately, "adventure designer's fiat") involved in a particular NPC or monster existing at all, that amount of fiat does not vary depending on whether or how the monster is advanced. IOW, there is no RAW that says the PCs must encounter a beholder; it is enough that the RAW says that they can. And whether that beholder is unadvanced, advanced by HD, has Beholder Mage levels or has Paladin* levels, its existence is equally RAW (still not required, still permitted).

Yeah there is no rule that players have to encounter a beholder. But we have rules for the most typical "version" of a beholder printed/written. And if you alter any of the stats of it, you aren't using the printed/written version of a beholder anymore. You have created a different version.

The same logic applies to PCs: There is no rulebook anywhere that says Evan Thorngage, 13th-level PF1 Druid exists. But that does not make him homebrew - RAW permits him to exist, and that is sufficient (he is a PFS character so there are arguably some house rules involved depending on how you characterise the changes to the main game that PFS makes. But definitely no hombrew involved.)

Don't mix up Leveling and Advancement pls. These are 2 totally different things.
The base assumption of a PC is that he gains levels.
A monster on the other hand doesn't level. It has fixed stats that can be "advanced" if needed.

You can have an Advanced Version of a monster (RAW legal and RAW content)..

... and you can have a Different Version of a monster (RAW legal, but homebrew content).

This is wrong: Specific Beats General is just how rules systems work - it is pretty much the only way they can work. The PSR is another tool for resolving rules conflicts on top of that. SBG does not need to be specifically stated, although it is rarely a bad idea.

Specific Trumps General is how any rule/logic based system works. Be it rules, law or code.

Yeah, i agree that it is elementary for rules systems to work at all.

The authors of 3.5 did know this and assumed it as "common knowledge".

But in reality most people struggle with this elementary important concept/logic behind this.
Otherwise everyone would be able to easily read and interpret any laws themselves. But most of us struggle we these things and need lawyers who are able to read LAW (Laws As Written) for them.

Same here in 3.5. People did struggle and wasn't aware how you are supposed to read rules.

This is the main reason why the Primary Source Rule was added later into the ERRATA. The core books where all written with the PSR (or simplified Specific Trumps General) mind, but the rule itself was missing initially.
This caused the biggest mess imaginable on the official 3.5 forum. E.g. "People where extrapolating a monk's unarmed strike rules (to count as manufactured or natural for effects) as general rule." That kind of mess.
In the end WotC realized that they need to address the problem and introduced the PSR into the ERRATA.

Read the PSR carefully and realize that it presents the 3.5 rules for "Specific Trumps General". It tells you which rule takes when precedence.
The slight issue with the oversimplified term "Specific Trumps General" is that is only represents half of the PSR, namely "Topic" precedence. Since topic ain't defined (or has any restrictions) anything "more specific" can create its own topic where it has supremacy over. This is effectively Specific Trumps General.
But the PSR also contains book precedence, which gets a bit lost in the term "Specific Trumps General", or at least ain't that obvious.

loky1109

2023-09-29, 03:10 AM

Gruftzwerg, one more time. If we go your way you can't call something RAW, or not RAW, or RAI, or homebrew, because there are no RAW definitions of RAW, RAI, homebrew, etc. Do you see issue here?

Plus if we use your idea (RAW is something printed in books and nothing more) all your RAW TO actually is homebrew TO. You shoot your own leg.

Creating an unprinted RAW legal version of a monster is still homebrew and not printed.
Realistically nobody will agree with such point of view. RAW legal version of a monsters are RAW, while they are still not printed. Homebrew == new rules, not new combination of existing rules.

If all our homebrew creations would be RAW, we would have problems to talk about RAW because we would first need to show each other all our creations... Sorry but this is logical insanity and not the intention behind the definition of RAW. WE use the term to explicitly exclude such stuff.
Yes, it's insanity. Do you know why? Because you use one word in two different meanings.
Your "homebrew" (I exchange toughness for skill focus in monster statblok) and regular "homebrew" (I made new prestige class and call it lightning warrior) aren't same. You "homebrew" clearly is RAW, regular homebrew is, y'know, homebrew.

If nothing out of books is RAW we also have problems to talk about RAW.

you are assuming that just because something is based on Rules As Written that it becomes Rules As Written itself.
But that is contrary to the definition of RAW.
Is there that definition? Could you give it us, please? It'll be cool if it has source.

ixrisor

2023-09-29, 04:14 AM

Somewhat relevant to this discussion: some true dragons can be PCs, since they have level adjustments. True dragons advance by HD, however, Draconomicon states that when they acquire xp, not only can it be used to acquire either RHD or class levels, in most cases it *must* be used to obtain a mix of both. (If a true dragon is old enough to gain more RHD, it must spend its next level on RHD, but if it gains enough xp to level without being old enough, it must take a class level).

These rules are for players rather than for DMs, but it’s further evidence that DMs aren’t limited to advancing monsters by the method in their statblock.

glass

2023-09-29, 06:37 AM

True. My point in the text you quoted was not to say we must be right because we have more people on our side, but that the issue was not as 'obviously ambiguous' as rel said, because a single person with questionable logic arguing against a well-justified majority opinion does not automatically give that person's argument merit (and thus would fail to introduce meaningful ambiguity).Yeah, sorry. I got that, but I can see that it did not come across in my response.

My go-to answer to "there is a disagreement so there must be ambiguity" is 3e Rogue Sneak Attack working on every attack - it is about clear an unambiguous as you can get in English. But back in the early 2000s on ENworld there was still about a thread a week querying it and (sometimes) arguing against it. For years.

Assume a crazy DM would make the statement that he plays "strict 100% RAW". Would you assume to see any non printed creatures in the game? The rules clearly allow for homebrew creations and to alter monsters if the DM wants it. But that doesn't turn it into RAW content.Depends on how you are defining "non-printed creatures". If a GM was claiming "strict 100% RAW", I certainly would not see a Beholder Mage (or any monster advanced by any or all of the three available methods) as a violation of that.

(I would expect many actual violations because playing 3.x 100% strict RAW is, as you say, crazy. But this would not be one of them.)

Yeah there is no rule that players have to encounter a beholder. But we have rules for the most typical "version" of a beholder printed/written. And if you alter any of the stats of it, you aren't using the printed/written version of a beholder anymore. You have created a different version.We have a description of the most typical version, but there is no rule that says we have to use the most typical version. We can use any legal version, and despite your protestations you have not actually shown that a version with class levels is illegal.

Don't mix up Leveling and Advancement pls. These are 2 totally different things.You keep asserting this, but you have not backed this claim up either.

The base assumption of a PC is that he gains levels.
A monster on the other hand doesn't level. It has fixed stats that can be "advanced" if needed.This is true. The PC faces more restrictions on their advancement and must do it piecemeal, whereas the GM faces fewer restrictions and usually (but not always) does it all in one go. These are differences between PCs and NPCs, not categorical differences between "levelling" and "advancement".

You can have an Advanced Version of a monster (RAW legal and RAW content).Is this a breakthrough? Up to this point, you had been stating that anything not specifically printed in the book was "homebrew" and advanced versions of monsters are not printed in the book (except by implication of the advancement rules, but up until now you did not seem to acknowledging the results of following those rules as RAW).

... and you can have a Different Version of a monster (RAW legal, but homebrew content).Indeed. But in the context of this discussion, that would be something like a beholder with 47 eyes rather than 11, not a beholder with Beholder Made levels.

loky1109

2023-09-29, 06:42 AM

because playing 3.x 100% strict RAW is, as you say, crazy
Wrong word. Not crazy, just impossible.

Gnaeus

2023-09-29, 08:18 AM

But in reality most people struggle with this elementary important concept/logic behind this.
Otherwise everyone would be able to easily read and interpret any laws themselves. But most of us struggle we these things and need lawyers who are able to read LAW (Laws As Written) for them.

Lawyer here. Do not drag my profession into your misinterpretations. The concept of legal interpretation is complicated, and yes, it does involve the actual written text of the law. Which is often not better written than a game book. So after we argue about the plain text, we are not done. We discuss how it interacts with other law and whether they can be read to be complementary rather than in conflict. We discuss, where possible, the legislative intent, what the law was meant to do (Which is often much easier with a game than a law, as the game tends to have less rulemakers). We discuss the policy repercussions of interpreting the law in one way versus the other, as in, will this rule, if extended logically, cause additional problems. We discuss how that fits into the standing body of law as interpreted by the courts, if they have made rulings on related parts of the law. And yes, that is ultimately a community consensus exercise, because if Judge Gruftzwerg disagrees with Judge Gnaeus that decision is reviewed by an appeals court, and ultimately if needed a supreme court. And the way they interpret the law is definitionally the right way.

And most of all, if we value our practice, we don't make arguments to the court that look bad on all those other terms because that makes us look bad, and makes the court less inclined to believe our better arguments later.

I give your law school paper an F. You have failed to carry out your textual interpretation past one reading of an original source. Failed to attempt to reconcile it with the larger body of law. Failed to determine what the rule was intended to do. Failed to interpret it in the light of existing rulings in the form of the many many counterexamples. Failed to show why your ruling is the superior one for the game. And ultimately presented to the court an argument that most viewers regard as absurd, causing lasting damage to your standing.

Gruftzwerg

2023-09-30, 03:08 AM

Gruftzwerg, one more time. If we go your way you can't call something RAW, or not RAW, or RAI, or homebrew, because there are no RAW definitions of RAW, RAI, homebrew, etc. Do you see issue here?
I get what you mean. But the issue here is that we are not talking about actual play here. The discussion here thrives from my RAW TO build claims which is based on the 3.5 communities definition of RAW. We have defined these therms to differentiate between RAW, RAI and homebrew/houserules, not to mix em up as we want to. That's the main idea behind it, to have clear non-overlapping categories.

The problem of this discussion is that we have printed rules (RAW) that clearly allow a DM to make houserules and homebrew stuff (RAW legal, but not RAW content). It's a logical problem of the situation at hand.

Again, this discussion bears no weight for actual play. There a DM just does what he sees fit (and that doesn't upset his players so they quit playing with him^^). We are just arguing if what the DM does is RAW content or not. And by strict RAW it's not.

Plus if we use your idea (RAW is something printed in books and nothing more) all your RAW TO actually is homebrew TO. You shoot your own leg.
PC operate under different rules and under a different assumption. Players have rules for gaining XP and LVLs. Monster do not. They rely purely on the entry in their advancement line. See the difference here pls.

These rules are for players rather than for DMs, but it’s further evidence that DMs aren’t limited to advancing monsters by the method in their statblock.
Sorry but ain't this a self contradicting statement here? You say it's for PCs and not DMs, but see it as permission to do the same with monsters? Unless you use the DM joker "DM is always right", this ain't gonna fly by RAW.

Depends on how you are defining "non-printed creatures". If a GM was claiming "strict 100% RAW", I certainly would not see a Beholder Mage (or any monster advanced by any or all of the three available methods) as a violation of that.

(I would expect many actual violations because playing 3.x 100% strict RAW is, as you say, crazy. But this would not be one of them.)

We have a description of the most typical version, but there is no rule that says we have to use the most typical version. We can use any legal version, and despite your protestations you have not actually shown that a version with class levels is illegal.

As said to Loky, the main idea behind the terms RAW, RAI and housrule/homebrew was to differentiate when we talk about 3.5 related stuff.

You are within RAW (content) as long as you use printed versions of the monster along with printed options (like Advancement; Templates; Gear...).

To make the problem more clear, let me explain what is lacking here.
LA gives a blank base construct of a monster that a PC can use along with the options he has for building a PC.
If the MM would give the DM a similar blanko sheet for beholders, a beholder with "Advancement: by class level" would be RAW content.

But the MM only provides the most common version of a beholder. It's not a blank sheet to fill. The stats represent the general state of rules for a beholder. Changing your "Advancement:"line ain't a character/monster option but the DM's option to make his own homebrewed contend. You need to rely on "monster creation rules" to get a beholder version with another advancement line. Thus you are creating homebrewed contend.

If we want non overlapping Terms for easier discussion we need clear non overlapping definitions for RAW RAI and homebrew/houserules. I hope I could presented a clear differentiation between the terms as needed. Without a clear differentiation these terms would make no sense and would be useless. But I hope that I could showcase the need why we use these therm and why they need to be clearly distinct from each other (as much as possible. The sole problem as said is the logical problem that RAW permits homebrew content where we need to be careful to not get mislead).

You keep asserting this, but you have not backed this claim up either.
Sorry but what? We have multiple defined terms. (Character) Level, XP, Advancement. By their definitions, they are either used for PC or Monsters.

Sorry, but it's your turn here. You have to show any rule that says that they are still the same or that both PC and DM can use em. I already have provided quotes which contradict with such assumptions.

Is this a breakthrough? Up to this point, you had been stating that anything not specifically printed in the book was "homebrew" and advanced versions of monsters are not printed in the book (except by implication of the advancement rules, but up until now you did not seem to acknowledging the results of following those rules as RAW).

No, see above. Advancement is a RAW option for monsters. The beholder monster entry does not offer you the option to chose "how it advances". It only gives you the option if you want to advance it by HD or not.
If you want a beholder to advance by class you need to create a different version, which is non printed content.

Lawyer here. Do not drag my profession into your misinterpretations. The concept of legal interpretation is complicated, and yes, it does involve the actual written text of the law. Which is often not better written than a game book. So after we argue about the plain text, we are not done. We discuss how it interacts with other law and whether they can be read to be complementary rather than in conflict. We discuss, where possible, the legislative intent, what the law was meant to do (Which is often much easier with a game than a law, as the game tends to have less rulemakers). We discuss the policy repercussions of interpreting the law in one way versus the other, as in, will this rule, if extended logically, cause additional problems. We discuss how that fits into the standing body of law as interpreted by the courts, if they have made rulings on related parts of the law. And yes, that is ultimately a community consensus exercise, because if Judge Gruftzwerg disagrees with Judge Gnaeus that decision is reviewed by an appeals court, and ultimately if needed a supreme court. And the way they interpret the law is definitionally the right way.

And most of all, if we value our practice, we don't make arguments to the court that look bad on all those other terms because that makes us look bad, and makes the court less inclined to believe our better arguments later.

I give your law school paper an F. You have failed to carry out your textual interpretation past one reading of an original source. Failed to attempt to reconcile it with the larger body of law. Failed to determine what the rule was intended to do. Failed to interpret it in the light of existing rulings in the form of the many many counterexamples. Failed to show why your ruling is the superior one for the game. And ultimately presented to the court an argument that most viewers regard as absurd, causing lasting damage to your standing.
I live in Germany so there may be slightly differences due to that, but as far as I know the court structure system is similar.

First let me tell you that I had longer conversations about this with lawyers and judges alike. The different levels of courts require higher levels of system mastery from the judge, which is in this case reading LAW (Law As Written). They also get more options along the higher courts (like demanding law changes due to new noticed exploit/loophole or otherwise unexpected results/side-effects). But that doesn't change that they all operate on the written LAW at first. Since judges represent the institution that has supremacy over the laws (effectively WotC employers) that have options to initiate "updates" according to their status. And the higher you go at the court levels, the better the judge is at reading LAW. You don't start out at the highest court as newbie (normally as far as I know from germany).

If a lawyer arguments with LAI (Laws As Intended), he basically ask the judge/DM for an exception since LAW doesn't fit LAI. And the judge can then in response see if he agrees with that and if he has the legal permission by his rank to make those exceptions. If he doesn't have the permission, you have to go to the next lvl (or highest lvl), to ask for LAW changes because of LAI.

All the things you described we are doing here too. The sole difference here is that we lack an official institution for 3.5 RAW with an official hierarchy of paid lawyers and judges (with increasing system mastery to read RAW).
- we discuss what the rule text says by RAW ("argue about the plain text")
- we look up the hierarchy the Primary Source Rule creates to look up for possible rule interactions elsewhere (how it interacts with other law)
- we argue about RAI and hope to convince our DM to ignore RAW here ("the legislative intent": you do that to convince the judge to go for LAI instead of LAW if possible due to his rank. You can't demand LAI, you can just hope for it)
- for RAI we also (did) like to quote the F.A.Q. (effectively: "if they have made rulings on related parts of the law")
- and we did also had a soure for "definitionally" right answers: Customer Care service for rules. ("the way they interpret the law is definitionally the right way".) (I know how bad some CC and FAQ responses are. But they are still official responses..)
- most of us avoid uncommon arguments to not derail into a rule discussion DM or to not let look us bad. ("And most of all, if we value our practice, we don't make arguments to the court that look bad on all those other terms because that makes us look bad, and makes the court less inclined to believe our better arguments later."). Sometimes a lawyer may still see the need for a change in LAW since it produces unwanted/unexpected results. But he can't decide this on his own. He have to guess how good his changes are to convince the supreme court that a change in LAW is needed because of "X". Then he tells this to his client and asks if he is willing for the challenge and possible expenses. And if both are up for the challenge, they try their luck at the SC.

Really, imho for the most part game rules, laws and program code rely on the same principles. We just use different topic specific terms to describe the same underlying mechanics.

Finally, there is a reason why we call it "rulelawyering" and not "rulejudging". We are not officials and can argue and guess how a possible "judge" would decide things according to RAW/LAW. Sadly, we lost the offical judge since WotC stopped the 3.5 support. It's a bit like arguing about the laws of country that doesn't exist anymore.

NontheistCleric

2023-09-30, 03:18 AM

But the MM only provides the most common version of a beholder. It's not a blank sheet to fill. The stats represent the general state of rules for a beholder. Changing your "Advancement:"line ain't a character/monster option but the DM's option to make his own homebrewed contend. You need to rely on "monster creation rules" to get a beholder version with another advancement line. Thus you are creating homebrewed contend.

You are the only person advocating for this absurd definition of 'homebrew'. Literally no one else is convinced.

loky1109

2023-09-30, 03:34 AM

But the issue here is that we are not talking about actual play here.
Where did you take "actual game" from? I said "we don't have RAW/homebrew definition and using your point of view is road to hell", you answer "it's not talk about actual play, it's about RAW TO"... What? With who were you talking? Yes, it's RAW TO, and you try to claim what RAW is. But there is no definition of RAW. Especially your definition. And your "definition" works awful.

"It's a logical problem of the situation at hand."
This logical problem only exists if you for some reason try to call clearly RAW stuff homebrew.

"PC operate under different rules and under a different assumption. Players have rules for gaining XP and LVLs. Monster do not. They rely purely on the entry in their advancement line. See the difference here pls."
Sorry, I don't. Nowhere in books exists any PC (well Tordek and his comrades exist). All PC are homebrew. Yeah, there are rules how to create and level up PCs, but also there are rules how improve monsters. If improved monsters aren't RAW, PC either. Same logic. Fact that rules for PC are slightly different doesn't matter. Rules are rules.

glass

2023-09-30, 04:16 AM

You are within RAW (content) as long as you use printed versions of the monster along with printed options (like Advancement; Templates; Gear...).Exactly, and per text that is has already been quoted by others (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?659992-Monsters-Advancing-By-Class&p=25869331&viewfull=1#post25869331), advancement includes class levels and templates for all monsters (or at least all monsters with at least Int 3 for the former).

To make the problem more clear, let me explain what is lacking here.
LA gives a blank base construct of a monster that a PC can use along with the options he has for building a PC.
If the MM would give the DM a similar blanko sheet for beholders, a beholder with "Advancement: by class level" would be RAW content.Arguably, changing the "Advancement" line would indeed be homebrew. But fortunately, you don't need to change it to "By character class", you can just do it.

Sorry but what? We have multiple defined terms. (Character) Level, XP, Advancement. By their definitions, they are either used for PC or Monsters.So you keep asserting. But it is not enough to assert that "Leveling" and "Advancement" has strict and mutually-exclusive definitions, you have to prove it.

Sorry, but it's your turn here. You have to show any rule that says that they are still the same or that both PC and DM can use em.Nope, you made the positive claim (that levelling and advancement are terms of art with strict and non-overlapping definitions). The burden of proof is yours. It is not on me to prove your claim false.

I already have provided quotes which contradict with such assumptions.I do not believe you have, but TBF it is quite a long thread and I could have missed something. Could you repeat or link these quotes?

I live in Germany so there may be slightly differences due to that, but as far as I know the court structure system is similar.I cannot speak for German courts (or American for that matter) but I do know that British courts can look at Hansard (the records of parliamentary debates) to get info on the "RAI" for British laws (IANAL). Unfortunately, there is no Hansard equivalent for WotC's internal deliberations, so our best and only guide to RAI is RAW (and it is a highly flawed one).

Which is a bit of a red herring, because AFAICT nobody in this thread really disagrees (or cares in this context) about RAI in this context. What we disagree on is the RAW.

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-03, 01:02 AM

You are the only person advocating for this absurd definition of 'homebrew'. Literally no one else is convinced.
The amount of "minority jokers" won't change the outcome of a RAW debate. RAW ain't decided by democratic majority. So I kindly request better arguments than "you are the minority with your interpretation".

Where did you take "actual game" from? I said "we don't have RAW/homebrew definition and using your point of view is road to hell", you answer "it's not talk about actual play, it's about RAW TO"... What? With who were you talking? Yes, it's RAW TO, and you try to claim what RAW is. But there is no definition of RAW. Especially your definition. And your "definition" works awful.

"It's a logical problem of the situation at hand."
This logical problem only exists if you for some reason try to call clearly RAW stuff homebrew.
RAW, RAI and homebrew/houserule are all undefined words in the 3.5 language and are all community creations.

The community created em to communicate easier and faster. It would be annoying and to much time consuming if we would always make lengthy explanations for these things (RAW; RAI;...) while communicating to each other.

Take the Iron Chef competitions as example.
While we have Rules As Written that allows to make homebrew stuff (e.g. monsters, races, magic items...), the competitions still expect a RAW (content) entry and not a homebrew entry based on RAW (rules) for homebrew creations.

This is what I am referring to: "If a DM creates a Beholder and simply changes the "Advancement:" line it is considered a different version and thus homebrew and not printed contend anymore."

I am not talking whether or not a DM is allowed to do this (he clearly is by RAW since he can make any rule changes as DM if he wants). I'm simply saying that it doesn't fit the communities definition for RAW contend anymore. (Thus it would be illegal for a forum competition.)

Under your assumption, I could use homebrew stuff in the next Iron Chef competition (maybe when you are judging the next time?^^) and claim it is RAW legal as long as I follow the rules for creating homebrew content. Be careful what you say/promise here. I might in the future remind you of your statement here ;)

Also note that the IC competition also has "house rules". May I now ignore em to, because "house rules" are not printed rules in the books? We need these terms to communicate and to do stuff with 3.5. Otherwise we would end in pure CHAOS.

"PC operate under different rules and under a different assumption. Players have rules for gaining XP and LVLs. Monster do not. They rely purely on the entry in their advancement line. See the difference here pls."
Sorry, I don't. Nowhere in books exists any PC (well Tordek and his comrades exist). All PC are homebrew. Yeah, there are rules how to create and level up PCs, but also there are rules how improve monsters. If improved monsters aren't RAW, PC either. Same logic. Fact that rules for PC are slightly different doesn't matter. Rules are rules.
The difference is as said that the rules for PC give em mostly blank character sheets to fill.
But the MM provides us with the most common version and tells us how that most common version may advance.
It didn't leave the "Advancement:"-line bank in an undefined state so that you may decide it. It has a clear entry and that is "by HD" for the printed version of a Beholder and not "by Class level".

Exactly, and per text that is has already been quoted by others (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?659992-Monsters-Advancing-By-Class&p=25869331&viewfull=1#post25869331), advancement includes class levels and templates for all monsters (or at least all monsters with at least Int 3 for the former).
You are referring to the general Advancement rules, which simply gets trumped by the more specific rules of each category.
It's "Improving Monsters: By Class" which has supremacy over the topic to "advance by class". It's the most specific defined rule topic here.

Arguably, changing the "Advancement" line would indeed be homebrew. But fortunately, you don't need to change it to "By character class", you can just do it.

As said, this interpretation degenerates the entire definition of the "Advancement:" line into mechanically irrelevant fluff text. Logic demands that definitions and values for stats have a mechanical impact and are not simply eye candy that can be ignored or exchanged as you wish.

So you keep asserting. But it is not enough to assert that "Leveling" and "Advancement" has strict and mutually-exclusive definitions, you have to prove it.
Two distinct definitions are enough proof for that. It's you problem to show that they are the same or exchangeable.

Can I exchange "Power Attack" for "Improved TWF" on a creature or a magic item, just because I want to? Why should you be able to exchange different stuff as you wish? This makes no sense. As such, you can't exchange Leveling and Advancement as you wish (unless you present rules for it).

Nope, you made the positive claim (that levelling and advancement are terms of art with strict and non-overlapping definitions). The burden of proof is yours. It is not on me to prove your claim false.
We have 2 distinct definitions.
I think you can find the definitions and rules for both yourself. I'm not gonna quote the entire Leveling and Advancement rules here in the forum. That would be a bit to much to ask. Read em yourself and if you find any proof in the rules that you may exchange em as you wish, you can then quote that passage for us. You are claiming that such a permission exist, so the burden of proof is on you here. Don't expect me to quote the entire rule and explain at each sentence that it doesn't give you the permission. That would be total overblown post that nobody would read due to its size.

I do not believe you have, but TBF it is quite a long thread and I could have missed something. Could you repeat or link these quotes?
I have multiple times quoted the Advancement line and Improving Monster rules. And while I haven't quoted the XP rules, they can be found in the "Player's Handbook" starting at page 58. It's in the book for player and an option for monsters to begin with..

I cannot speak for German courts (or American for that matter) but I do know that British courts can look at Hansard (the records of parliamentary debates) to get info on the "RAI" for British laws (IANAL). Unfortunately, there is no Hansard equivalent for WotC's internal deliberations, so our best and only guide to RAI is RAW (and it is a highly flawed one).
As said, it depends on the level of the court and judge (and also depending on the country^^) how much he is supposed to use LAW (laws as written) and/or LAI (laws as intended).
If we compare this to 3.5 again, we also have different levels and types (effectively different countries) of ruling (forum competition and individual tables) .

Occasionally it happens in real life that a "baddy" gets away because of a loophole in the laws as written. Despite the intend is to get all the baddies, they get away. This can only occur if the judge goes strictly for LAW and ignores LAI.

If we go back to the 3.5 rules: Someone notices a loophole in the rules and it needs to be adjusted by houserules to prevent further abuse (since we don't have any official updates for 3.5 anymore..). Since forum competitions and build showcases rely on the assumption of a dummy DM with lil (contests) to no (showcases) houserules, they are open for "RAW abuse" but not for "homebrew content operating under RAW".

Which is a bit of a red herring, because AFAICT nobody in this thread really disagrees (or cares in this context) about RAI in this context. What we disagree on is the RAW.
Yeah. We sole argue if it fits the intend of the community creation of the term RAW here. Nothing else. That's why I have pointed out that this discussion doesn't bear any real weight outside of the forums hobby to discuss RAW topics to death...^^

Just because I pointed out that a different version of a monster excludes it as "RAW content" people did take it wrong and stated a debate into the wrong direction...

As said multiple times: This entire thread only exists because we have a forum definition for RAW that includes the rules for homebrew creations while at the same time excludes all homebrew content.
There is no reason or gain to be expected from further discussing this imho. But people get mad because I differentiate between RAW content and homebrew content.. I don't know how else to describe the silliness of this debate here..^^

AvatarVecna

2023-10-03, 01:11 AM

Last time on dragon ball z:

yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no

Oh man I can't wait to find out what happens next!

EDIT: And afterwards, stay tuned for another wacky episode of "How Hard Can You Beat A Dead Horse?" (recorded in front of a live studio audience every weekday at 6pm sharp).

NontheistCleric

2023-10-03, 03:09 AM

The amount of "minority jokers" won't change the outcome of a RAW debate. RAW ain't decided by democratic majority. So I kindly request better arguments than "you are the minority with your interpretation".

This isn't about interpretations, it's about the fact that your definition of RAW is wildly divergent from the definition every single other person here is using.

Our shared community definition is useful in a discussion because it has widespread acceptance. Your personal one is not useful because it has no acceptance beyond yourself. This is simply how language works, and it means the majority absolutely does matter.

loky1109

2023-10-03, 03:26 AM

RAW, RAI and homebrew/houserule are all undefined words in the 3.5 language and are all community creations.
And as you can see community doesn't agree with your point of view.

If a DM creates a Beholder and simply changes the "Advancement:" line it is considered a different version and thus homebrew and not printed contend anymore
My point is that DM doesn't need to change Advancement line to advance Beholder with class levels. "By HD" itself permits this.

We need these terms to communicate and to do stuff with 3.5. Otherwise we would end in pure CHAOS.
Exactly! And you didn't use them it right way as I can see.

To be clear. Is Beholder with Lightning Reflexes instead of Iron Will a different version? How about Beholder with different skill points distribution? How about Beholder with elite or non-elite arrays used? How about Beholder with 15 HD? How about Half-Dragon Beholder?

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-06, 12:11 AM

This isn't about interpretations, it's about the fact that your definition of RAW is wildly divergent from the definition every single other person here is using.

Our shared community definition is useful in a discussion because it has widespread acceptance. Your personal one is not useful because it has no acceptance beyond yourself. This is simply how language works, and it means the majority absolutely does matter.

Yeah, our shared community definition...

So, I can ignore printed stats and exchange em as I see fit and still claim that it is RAW?
Or, maybe I alter my racial traits or exchange my class abilities who knows, because homebrew stuff is now RAW...

I wanna see you submitting such an entry (with the claims you made / not my exaggerated examples) in any of the forum contest and see how the judges will rate it.
I doubt that you'll get a pass for being RAW.

As said multiple times now, see the difference between "DM created content legally based on Rules As Written" and "printed contend that is/are Rules As Written".

Yeah the rules (RAW) allow a DM to make any houserules and homebrew content. RAW clearly allows a DM to simply do that. But houserules and homebrew content will never be RAW content. That is excluded by definition.

We have 3 distinctly defined categories categories: RAW; RAI and homebrew/housrule.

It's a logical property of what the community definition of RAW is. It excludes any houserules and homebrew content, just like it ignores any intend behind the rules (RAI).

And as you can see community doesn't agree with your point of view.
I don't force anything on anyone here. (Nor is this a play advice, since as said, this is just a forum specific theoretical discussion of what is RAW or not)

But just a disagreeing is just that, as long as you don't present any logical valid argument. We ain't in the church here. What someone believes is (mostly) irrelevant as long as he can't present logical arguments. And as said, majority ain't a valid argument here. Sorry.

My point is that DM doesn't need to change Advancement line to advance Beholder with class levels. "By HD" itself permits this.
Really? Lets have a look at the Primary Source, the definition of it:

Increased Hit Dice

Intelligent creatures that are not humanoid in shape, and nonintelligent monsters, can advance by increasing their Hit Dice. Creatures with increased Hit Dice are usually superior specimens of their race, bigger and more powerful than their run-of-the-mill fellows.
Where does it allow it to advance by class? But wait.. didn't we had a distincly defined separate category for that?..

Class Levels

Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line. When a monster adds a class level, that level usually represents an increase in experience and learned skills and capabilities.

Exactly! And you didn't use them it right way as I can see.
As you can see above, I think the same about your claims. Provide rule quotes that don't ignore the rule hierarchy and show me how you get to your claims. And to remind you: Think about the forum challenges as a guideline for what is acceptable by RAW. Would you yourself use such an entry, or how would you rate it. So you really wanna imply I can ignore the printed rules and change em as I want em and still claim that it is still 100% RAW content?

To be clear. Is Beholder with Lightning Reflexes instead of Iron Will a different version? How about Beholder with different skill points distribution? How about Beholder with elite or non-elite arrays used? How about Beholder with 15 HD? How about Half-Dragon Beholder?

changing feats = new (homebrew) version
changed skill point distribution = new (homebrew) version
changed Ability Scores (elite array) = new (homebrew) version

Beholder with 15HD = an advanced version as suggested by the rules presented in the Advancement line. But not enough for a size change. RAW legal and RAW contend

Half-Dragon Beholder = a specific (templated) version, but still RAW legal and RAW content (the template is legal for beholders).

In all cases a (real) DM is always free to do whatever he wants and sees fit (and gets away without his players quitting the game^^). The books give a DM permission to create his own homebrew content and rules, but those never become RAW. See the logical problem here by how Rules As Written (printed) is defined.

Let me ask you the same question again for these examples here. How would you judge em in a forum contest? Would you rate em all as RAW legal content and thus legal for the contest? I just wanna be sure how I know your standpoint here. Because, you know me and how exited I get when I see room for "exploitable mechanics". ;)

Zanos

2023-10-06, 01:42 AM

I wanna see you submitting such an entry (with the claims you made / not my exaggerated examples) in any of the forum contest and see how the judges will rate it.
I guarantee that if you submitted anything based on your interpretation of RAW in this thread to these contests, it would be disqualified.

Beni-Kujaku

2023-10-06, 02:07 AM

Let me ask you the same question again for these examples here. How would you judge em in a forum contest? Would you rate em all as RAW legal content and thus legal for the contest? I just wanna be sure how I know your standpoint here.

Depends on the contest. Iron Chef, Junkyard Wars and Zinc Saucier are contests for player characters. They're all disqualified since Beholder isn't a playable race (no LA).
Villainous Comp is a contest for villains based on CR rather than ECL. They're all available, as well as Beholders with class levels.
Monster Mash adds a LA to monsters that have none then is a competition for player characters. They're all available, as well as Beholders with class levels (in all cases, the total ECL obviously includes the reassigned LA).

NontheistCleric

2023-10-06, 03:15 AM

Yeah, our shared community definition...
'Our', as in 'me and everyone in this thread who is not you', since you clearly don't share our definition.

So, I can ignore printed stats and exchange em as I see fit and still claim that it is RAW?
Or, maybe I alter my racial traits or exchange my class abilities who knows, because homebrew stuff is now RAW...

I wanna see you submitting such an entry (with the claims you made / not my exaggerated examples) in any of the forum contest and see how the judges will rate it.
I doubt that you'll get a pass for being RAW.

Sure thing. I have participated in Villainous Competition more than once (rounds 24, 31, 34, 35, and 27, although my entry in 27 had no class levels).

All were built with my claims being assumed to be true, and in no cases were my entries dismissed for not being RAW. Indeed, I believe my entry for round 34 holds the dubious honor of being the only entry in VC history that was agreed to be legal but received no score from a judge.

loky1109

2023-10-06, 05:05 AM

YYeah, our shared community definition...

So, I can ignore printed stats and exchange em as I see fit and still claim that it is RAW?
Or, maybe I alter my racial traits or exchange my class abilities who knows, because homebrew stuff is now RAW...

Our shared community definition of term RAW.
RAW legal monster modifications are RAW.

As said multiple times now, see the difference between "DM created content legally based on Rules As Written" and "printed contend that is/are Rules As Written".
Denied.

Yeah the rules (RAW) allow a DM to make any houserules and homebrew content. RAW clearly allows a DM to simply do that. But houserules and homebrew content will never be RAW content. That is excluded by definition.
Modifying monsters (within RAW legal options) isn't creating homebrew. Dixi. You could repeat opposite as long as you want, it will not became true.

I wanna see you submitting such an entry (with the claims you made / not my exaggerated examples) in any of the forum contest and see how the judges will rate it.
I doubt that you'll get a pass for being RAW.
By your definition of RAW all entries already are homebrew.

But just a disagreeing is just that, as long as you don't present any logical valid argument.
Disagreeing is logical valid argument if we talk about community term, for example "RAW".

changing feats = new (homebrew) version
changed skill point distribution = new (homebrew) version
changed Ability Scores (elite array) = new (homebrew) version
All three (as like as another two) are RAW of course.

Beholder with 15HD = an advanced version as suggested by the rules presented in the Advancement line. But not enough for a size change. RAW legal and RAW contend
Wat? Where in books it was printed? I didn't find 15HD Beholder anywhere. How is it RAW in your terms???

Half-Dragon Beholder = a specific (templated) version, but still RAW legal and RAW content (the template is legal for beholders).
The same question?

Adding HD is RAW, changing feats is homebrew. I see double standard here.

In all cases a (real) DM is always free...
Doesn't matter. We don't talk about DM, or real games.

See the logical problem here by how Rules As Written (printed) is defined.
HOW??? How is Rules As Written defined? Who did define it? Where? When? Give me this definition. Please.

I guarantee that if you submitted anything based on your interpretation of RAW in this thread to these contests, it would be disqualified.
He couldn't. No one contest entry wasn't printed in the rulebooks, since isn't RAW.

Arcanist

2023-10-06, 11:40 AM

changing feats = new (homebrew) version
changed skill point distribution = new (homebrew) version
changed Ability Scores (elite array) = new (homebrew) version

Beholder with 15HD = an advanced version as suggested by the rules presented in the Advancement line. But not enough for a size change. RAW legal and RAW contend

Half-Dragon Beholder = a specific (templated) version, but still RAW legal and RAW content (the template is legal for beholders).

Somehow you've ended up arguing into a point where it is, according to your definition of RAW, acceptable to increase the HD of creature, but once you set out to enact the labor of doing so (adding feats, adding skill ranks, adding additional HP, etc) it becomes homebrew.

Quite impressive actually.

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-08, 11:39 PM

I guarantee that if you submitted anything based on your interpretation of RAW in this thread to these contests, it would be disqualified.
Excuse me, but I am the one following the restrictions set by the PSR and not cheesing by ignoring mechanical stats (Advancement: line and the definitions under Improving Monster).
If you wanna complain about illegal entries, look at those suggesting that I may freely exchange monster statistics while still claiming it is RAW content.

Explain me why my supposed entry would be disqualified for following the rules and for not ignoring the rules?
That seems to be a new contest rule...

Depends on the contest. Iron Chef, Junkyard Wars and Zinc Saucier are contests for player characters. They're all disqualified since Beholder isn't a playable race (no LA).
Villainous Comp is a contest for villains based on CR rather than ECL. They're all available, as well as Beholders with class levels.
Monster Mash adds a LA to monsters that have none then is a competition for player characters. They're all available, as well as Beholders with class levels (in all cases, the total ECL obviously includes the reassigned LA).
Didn't really answer my question. So let me rephrase it for you:

Would you allow a monster entry for VC and MM, where I exchange the printed stats of the monster?
Like exchanging the entry for the Advancement line or exchanged feats without any reason given?

Normally I assume that for a RAW (content) legal entry I would assume that any changes are replying on options to improving the monster.

But to change the "Advancement:", you aren't using the rules presented in Chapter 4: "Improving Monsters", but rely on the rules in Chapter 5 "Creating Monsters". Because the latter gives the DM the rule option to insert the value he wants into the "Advancement:" line. Nothing in the "Improving Monsters" chapter gives the DM the permission to exchange and values in the entry without a reason (like advancement).

Imho when you are following the rules presented in the monster's entry and Improving Monsters, you have RAW content.

But if you rely on the "Creating Monsters" rule set to create the monster you want, you have created homebrew content.

'Our', as in 'me and everyone in this thread who is not you', since you clearly don't share our definition.
I really doubt that what the others have been implying here would fly at any contest as said. Homebrew content is excluded from contests that rely on RAW content.

I aim not discussing a simple guts feeling here. I am talking about the underling logic behind the term RAW. If we start to include homebrew content as RAW content, half of the definition is ignored and the term RAW can't be used anymore to exclude homebrew. And I heavily insist that this is the other purpose of the term RAW. The first is to differentiate between RAW and RAI (rules), the other to differentiate between RAW and homebrew content.

Sure thing. I have participated in Villainous Competition more than once (rounds 24, 31, 34, 35, and 27, although my entry in 27 had no class levels).

All were built with my claims being assumed to be true, and in no cases were my entries dismissed for not being RAW. Indeed, I believe my entry for round 34 holds the dubious honor of being the only entry in VC history that was agreed to be legal but received no score from a judge.
And how many times have you exchanged any monster stat without the rule option (in Improving Monsters or elsewhere) to do so?

As said above, you would be relying on "Creating Monsters" to do so.

So, do you really wanna imply that the "Creating Monsters" rules are RAW content and thus legal for the contests here in our forum? Is that your point?

Our shared community definition of term RAW.
RAW legal monster modifications are RAW.

See my response to Beni-Kujaku. Improving Monsters is within RAW content. But you are relying on "Creating Monsters" rules to get a Beholder with a changed "Advancement:" line.

The is no rule option to sole exchange the "Advancement:" line for a Monster. The sole things that do that are Templates as far as I know (ok, templates are part of Improving Monsters, but nobody was arguing about using a Template here to my defense).

Denied.

Why? I have explained why the community did create/defined the term RAW in the first place. To differentiate between RAW, RAI and homebrew/houserules. Here we are at the edge where RAW and homebrew overlaps.
Because you can have homebrew content that is based either on houserules or on Rules As Written.

But just because your homebrew creation followed the RAW guidelines for homebrew creations, doesn't turn it into printed contend. It still remains homebrew content.

Modifying monsters (within RAW legal options) isn't creating homebrew. Dixi. You could repeat opposite as long as you want, it will not became true.
If you have the rule option to do so. But the rule option "Creating Monsters" is imho clearly flagged as creating homebrew content and not a RAW content option.

By your definition of RAW all entries already are homebrew.
No, because there you only make the changes by the build options you pick.

What you all are implying here is like taking a base class (e.g. Fighter) and applying the rules for creating classes or generic classes to it (e.g. give the Fighter Turn/Rebuke Undead as class feature instead of a bonus feat for no given reason).

Disagreeing is logical valid argument if we talk about community term, for example "RAW".

If you want to discuss something (what we in the forum intend to do) you present arguments to show others your reasoning and logic behind it. Otherwise you sole tell us your opinion. While that is also an interesting pice of info it won't solve the discussion and you already told us your opinion. Thus if you wanna discuss and not sole repeat your opinion over and over, it would be kind if you to add your reasoning along your opinion. Thanks in advance.

All three (as like as another two) are RAW of course.
RAW as in "Creating Monsters" (homebrew content) and not "Improving Monsters" (RAW content).

Wat? Where in books it was printed? I didn't find 15HD Beholder anywhere. How is it RAW in your terms???
Improving Monsters allows us to make these changes. But we lack a rule that allows to exchange the entries "Advancement:"line.

We have rules to create different versions of a monster (Creating Monsters), but these rules are clearly to make hombrew content and don't create RAW content.

The same question?

Adding HD is RAW, changing feats is homebrew. I see double standard here.
See the difference between rules that allow changes (as printed) and rules that allow to create stuff (as intended by the Rules As Written).

Improving Monsters gives the permission to add templates. But it doesn't give you the permission to exchange things without any rule option that explicitly allows it.

Creating a different version ain't the same thing as altering a version.

Creating content according to RAW = homebrew content
Altering content according to RAW = RAW content

I mean, where else would you draw the logical line if you want the term RAW to exclude homebrew stuff. It's the sole logical point to differentiate the two terms.

Doesn't matter. We don't talk about DM, or real games.
It matters because we have Rules As Written that allow the DM to make houserules and homebrew content.

But you are implying that any created (not altered) content is RAW content. With that definition the term RAW couldn't exclude homebrew content. And that kills half of the purpose of the term "RAW".

Just because the rules allow you to create stuff doesn't make it RAW content. It's RAW legal homebrew content but never becomes RAW content.

And Player Charaters operate on a different rule set as said. Players are handed out more or less blanko sheets for their race and have rule options (xp, levels, feats, templates...) to fill em.
(npc) Monsters on the other hand comes with full stats and the option to "advance" em (Improving Monsters). A printed (NPC) Monsters aren't as flexible as player character of the same race when it comes to builds (for those monsters that have an LA option)

To get the same flexibility, you need to rely on Creating Monster rules and these are imho clearly flagged as creating homebrew content.

HOW??? How is Rules As Written defined? Who did define it? Where? When? Give me this definition. Please.
See above, I have shown the reasons why the community created the term. To exclude RAI and homebrew/houserules.

If you wanna claim that RAW includes homebrew content, we could all argue that our hombrew creations are legal for the forum competitions and I heavily disagree with this.

He couldn't. No one contest entry wasn't printed in the rulebooks, since isn't RAW.
&

Somehow you've ended up arguing into a point where it is, according to your definition of RAW, acceptable to increase the HD of creature, but once you set out to enact the labor of doing so (adding feats, adding skill ranks, adding additional HP, etc) it becomes homebrew.

Quite impressive actually.

As said above, see the difference between "build options provided by the Rules As Written" and "creating homebrew content based on the Rules As Written".

NontheistCleric

2023-10-09, 12:36 AM

Bohandas

2023-10-09, 12:41 AM

I am firmly in the 'they can advance by class level if their Int is at or above 3' camp.

I'm not sure I agree on the 3 int requirement. Since the half dragon template can be applied to animals you should be able to occasionally get animal sorcerers. They would be very limited in spell selection being unable to speak but it could happen

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-09, 12:46 AM

The problem here is that you are misreading the Improving Monsters rule. You clearly believe there is a rule that requires a monster to have 'Advancement: By character class' in its statistics before it can advance by class, but there is no such rule.

The rules for "Improving Monsters - By Class" explicitly say it:

Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line. When a monster adds a class level, that level usually represents an increase in experience and learned skills and capabilities.

Just because the text begins its first sentence with a "general statement = no rule" (edit: as it is often the case in the 3.5 rules), doesn't mean that it doesn't follow up with rules. Remind you, we are defining something here. So the rules need to provide rule mechanics. Otherwise it wouldn't define anything but just be fluff text without mechanical impact.

And I hope that I don't need to argue that the visual formatting here is a clear indicator that the rules intent to define "Improving Monsters - By Class" here and that this ain't fluff text.

Your argumentation relies on degrading the entire definition of "Improving Monsters - By Class" to fluff text.

loky1109

2023-10-09, 04:34 AM

.Would you allow a monster entry for VC and MM, where I exchange the printed stats of the monster?

Even more. You should exchange the printed stats. You should use elite array stats.

But to change the "Advancement:", you aren't using the rules presented in Chapter 4:
Let me try to explain last time. All but you think we don't need to change it. "Most common version" at page 7 means that any advanced creature isn't common. Even advanced accordingly with Advancement line.

"The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra HD. Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die."

First. Beholder with 12 HD is "not common version".
Second. Advancement line with HD shows HD limits, but not prohibit gaining class levels. It is stated explicitly.

Changing Advancement line is homebrew. For example if I want to make Beholder with Advancement line "12-100 (Large)" or with "by character class" (which not allow to gain class, but prohibits to gain HD) - it will be.

RAW as in "Creating Monsters" (homebrew content) and not "Improving Monsters" (RAW content).
Okay...

changed Ability Scores (elite array) = new (homebrew) version
Chapter 4: Improving Monsters
Ability score arrays.

changing feats = new (homebrew) version
page 7

If you want to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats.

Creating a different version ain't the same thing as altering a version.
As I show earlier it is. )))

But you are implying that any created (not altered) content is RAW content.
No, I'm implying that Beholder Fighter 1 is altered content by RAW.

See above, I have shown the reasons why the community created the term.
I didn't ask you about reasons, I ask you about definition. Could you give it to me?

rel

2023-10-09, 11:32 PM

The question of whether or not advancing a monster by class without an 'advance by class' line in the entry would fly in a forum build challenge keeps coming up.

I can't claim to be an expert on such things, but I see such a challenge thread has just ended:

Monster Mash X (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?657225-Monster-Mash-X-Buds-of-a-monster-flock-together)

Looking over the winning entries (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25885810&postcount=59), I see a Grig Crusader (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25827988&postcount=25) in 1st place.

So the answer is yes.
You can submit monsters with class advancement to forum build challenges even if the monster entry doesn't specifically mention it. Your entry won't be disqualified, you might even win!

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-14, 09:55 PM

First let me say sorry for the late response but I have been very busy these days..

Let me try to explain last time. All but you think we don't need to change it. "Most common version" at page 7 means that any advanced creature isn't common. Even advanced accordingly with Advancement line.

Lets have a look what the MM book really implies with "most common version" here:

Advancement
This book usually describes only the most commonly encoun-
tered version of a creature (though some entries for advanced
monsters can be found). The advancement line shows how tough
a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice. (This is not an
absolute limit, but exceptions are extremely rare.) Often, intelli-
gent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class
instead of just gaining a new Hit Die.

The rules tell us that this is the most encountered version and that some creatures can have advanced entries.
(Note that the rules never claim to preset multiple versions of a single monster, but claim that a creature may have advanced entries too!)

Nowhere does this give you permission to make any changes to the advancement line.
This line is not the rule that gives you permission to create "different versions". If you want to create a different version, you rely on rules to "create monsters".

The Advancement line together with the actual rules for advancing by HD allow a DM to alter the most common version of a Beholder by adding HD.

But you intent to create a different version which relies on the rules for Creating Monsters (definitively homebrew content).

Changing Advancement line is homebrew. For example if I want to make Beholder with Advancement line "12-100 (Large)" or with "by character class" (which not allow to gain class, but prohibits to gain HD) - it will be.

That's all what I have been saying here. If you change the advancement line, you create homebrew content and don't have RAW content. You have homebrew content that may be based on RAW to create em (if you follow the rules for creating monsters). This was my initial statement and nothing else.

But somehow this turned into (imho) an unnecessary debate here..^^

"The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra HD. Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die."

First. Beholder with 12 HD is "not common version".
Second. Advancement line with HD shows HD limits, but not prohibit gaining class levels. It is stated explicitly.
First, according to the statement in the Advancement line's definition a Beholder with 12 HD is an advanced entry/version. It's still RAW content.

Second, it's the other way around in 3.5. You have to show us the permission by the rules, that a beholder may advance by class.
The Advancement line didn't give you permission, neither the rules for "advancing by class". So where is your permission to advance the most common version of a Beholder by class? There is none. As said in my TO build (which started this debate), you need to create a hombrew version and ain't using RAW material anymore if you wanna make any changes to the Advancement line.

page 7

If you want to customize the creature with new feats, you can reassign its other feats, but not its bonus feats.

Imho "customize" is an indicator that this is refering to the DM ability to create different (homebrew) versions of a monster.

Imho it is sometimes a bit harder to tell if the rules are talking about RAW content options or homebrew options, since the rules themselves don't differentiate between RAW content and homebrew content that is based on RAW. That's what we (the forum/community) is doing here. Thus, in situation like this one it can get a bit confusion where RAW ends and homebrew starts within the rules.

But I am very confident with my statement that a change to the Advancement line relies on creating a different homebrew version of a monster.

As I show earlier it is. )))

See the statement in the (MM book) Advancement line definition. The MM presents the most common version and sometimes "advanced entries" (or advanced versions). The MM never tells you that it shows you different versions of a monster. Because if that the MM wants to "creates a different version" of the monster, it just makes a separate monster with a unique name (e.g. subraces)

No, I'm implying that Beholder Fighter 1 is altered content by RAW.

And I'm arguing that it is homebrew content (due to the changed advancement line) legally altered by RAW (by applying the advancement by class rules).
See the slight difference here. As said, RAW allows you to create homebrew content. But that content is sole based on RAW but ain't RAW content itself.

I didn't ask you about reasons, I ask you about definition. Could you give it to me?
I don't think that anyone bothered to write it explicitly up. Forum discussions like these did gave birth to the term.
But the intention here is obvious. We want to differentiate between RAW, RAI and hombrew/houserules. And if that is our goal, we already have a base for rule mechanics. From there you just need to apply common sense logic to get to my outcome.
RAW talks only about written rules, RAI about the intention behind it, and homebrew/houserules are you DMs/tables preferred changes/additions.
With that being said, a "Beholder - Beholder Mage" would rely on homebrew content to be created legally by the Rules As Written.

The question of whether or not advancing a monster by class without an 'advance by class' line in the entry would fly in a forum build challenge keeps coming up.

I can't claim to be an expert on such things, but I see such a challenge thread has just ended:

Monster Mash X (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?657225-Monster-Mash-X-Buds-of-a-monster-flock-together)

Looking over the winning entries (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25885810&postcount=59), I see a Grig Crusader (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25827988&postcount=25) in 1st place.

So the answer is yes.
You can submit monsters with class advancement to forum build challenges even if the monster entry doesn't specifically mention it. Your entry won't be disqualified, you might even win!

Sad to see that the judges either didn't care or weren't aware of the issue (since we all tend to be more trained in PC creation than monster advancement).
But on the other hand, the several monster/villain challenges already operate on a changed ruleset (e.g. allowing monsters with no official LA or being CR based in the first place).
So, imho it's easier for the judges to get mislead here. (no offense against the judges here btw).

As said, since RAW and homebrew are community terms and the 3.5 books clearly allows to create homebrew content according to RAW, it is easy to get mislead here.

___________________________________

Just as Friendly Reminder for anyone accidentally stepping in here: This discussion was/is not about actual play but sole a discussion when you stop using RAW content and when you start using homebew content. It bears zero weight for real games because there the DM always has the last word. So don't get the wrong idea here.

AvatarVecna

2023-10-14, 11:36 PM

First let me say sorry for the late response but I have been very busy these days.

You don't need to apologize for not posting.

loky1109

2023-10-15, 03:02 AM

The rules tell us that this is the most encountered version and that some creatures can have advanced entries.
(Note that the rules never claim to preset multiple versions of a single monster, but claim that a creature may have advanced entries too!)
And what?...

Nowhere does this give you permission to make any changes to the advancement line.
This line is not the rule that gives you permission to create "different versions". If you want to create a different version, you rely on rules to "create monsters".
My point is that Beholder with 12 HD (you call it RAW content) already is "different version".
"Different versions" doesn't mean homebrew content.

But somehow this turned into (imho) an unnecessary debate here..^^
You used pretty bad wording. I (and I think not only I) understood your point as "any changes in the monster's statblok is homebrew" where any means really any. Do you add HD to beholder? Homebrew! Do you add wizard level to elf? Homebrew!

Second, it's the other way around in 3.5. You have to show us the permission by the rules, that a beholder may advance by class.
The Advancement line didn't give you permission, neither the rules for "advancing by class". So where is your permission to advance the most common version of a Beholder by class? There is none.
Ehm...
It was right here:

The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra HD. Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die.
It clearly is permission for every intelligent creature to replace HD with a level in a character class.

But I am very confident with my statement that a change to the Advancement line relies on creating a different homebrew version of a monster.
But you don't need change it.

No, I'm implying that Beholder Fighter 1 is altered content by RAW.
And I'm arguing that it is homebrew content (due to the changed advancement line) legally altered by RAW (by applying the advancement by class rules).
My point it's RAW content because you don't need change advancement line.

Imho "customize" is an indicator that this is refering to the DM ability to create different (homebrew) versions of a monster.

Imho it isn't.

See the slight difference here. As said, RAW allows you to create homebrew content. But that content is sole based on RAW but ain't RAW content itself.
It's very bad claim that doesn't give any benefits, but brings only confusion. RAW is RAW, homebrew is homebrew. RAW can't to allow create homebrew. You blur the boundary. Please understand me correctly, there is no logical failures in your point, but it's very inconvenient.

With that being said, a "Beholder - Beholder Mage" would rely on homebrew content to be created legally by the Rules As Written.
It's oxymoron in my book.

I don't think that anyone bothered to write it explicitly up. Forum discussions like these did gave birth to the term.
But the intention here is obvious. We want to differentiate between RAW, RAI and hombrew/houserules. And if that is our goal, we already have a base for rule mechanics. From there you just need to apply common sense logic to get to my outcome.
I see you have no definition.
But what definition were you talking about here:

In all cases a (real) DM is always free to do whatever he wants and sees fit (and gets away without his players quitting the game^^). The books give a DM permission to create his own homebrew content and rules, but those never become RAW. See the logical problem here by how Rules As Written (printed) is defined.
or here:

As locky, you are assuming that just because something is based on Rules As Written that it becomes Rules As Written itself.
But that is contrary to the definition of RAW. Only official sources may alter or add to RAW. But none of our homebrew creations are official sources.
or here:

The issue we have here is just a specific area of the rules where the theoretical concepts (definitions) RAW and RAI overlap only partially.

Please, use words carefully. If you told word "definition" your opponents could understand this as you told word "definition".

See the statement in the (MM book) Advancement line definition.
One more. There is no definition of Advancement line. Only outline and description.

NontheistCleric

2023-10-15, 04:13 AM

From there you just need to apply common sense logic to get to my outcome.

Gruftzwerg, I think we are all just going to have to accept that your 'common sense logic' in this matter is wildly divergent from the 'common sense logic' of literally every other person in this thread, and leave it at that. At this point, I don't think we are going to convince you, nor are you going to convince us.

Beni-Kujaku

2023-10-15, 07:22 AM

Gruftzwerg, I think we are all just going to have to accept that your 'common sense logic' in this matter is wildly divergent from the 'common sense logic' of literally every other person in this thread, and leave it at that. At this point, I don't think we are going to convince you, nor are you going to convince us.

Damn‚ and it took 82 replies to the thread to reach this conclusion. What a wild ride.

loky1109

2023-10-15, 07:40 AM

Damn‚ and it took 82 replies to the thread to reach this conclusion. What a wild ride.

Actually no. I knew that before. )

NontheistCleric

2023-10-15, 08:36 AM

Damn‚ and it took 82 replies to the thread to reach this conclusion. What a wild ride.

Let history record that each of us made our most valiant effort.

Herbert_W

2023-10-15, 10:46 AM

I'm late to the party, but let me offer a third perspective.

The distinctions between "RAW" and "RAI" and "homebrew" are lines that the community drew that help us to categorize player-facing options. In the context of player-facing options, these concepts are categorical: for each of these categories, something either is or isn't. (There may be varying degrees of clarity or certainly of a category membership, but that's not the same thing as category membership itself admitting varying degrees.)

However, when applied to DM-facing options, the categorical concept of RAW ceases to be useful:

When everyone gathers around the table to play the game, you’re in charge. That doesn’t mean you can tell people what to do out- side the boundaries of the game, but it does mean that you’re the final arbiter of the rules within the game.

Anything and everything that a DM does inside the boundaries of the game is permitted by RAW just becasue a DM is doing it. In other words, the fact that a DM is doing something is a sufficient condition to make it permitted by RAW. So, there you have it: yes, yes, it's all RAW!

That's a rather profoundly useless conclusion - so let's try to add some nuance. There's a sliding scale of how subjectively-close-to-RAW a thing is that a DM does, which includes:

Something printed in the books, such as a version of a monster as it appears in the monster manual.
Something that the rules explicitly suggest, such as creating new spells.
Something that the rules explicitly state is possible but rare, such as advancing a monster's RHD beyond the usual limit.
Implementing variant rules suggested in secondary sourcebooks, such as those in UA.
Extrapolating from existing options and making something that that doesn't contradict existing rules, such as creating a new classes.
Adding new mechanical systems to the game, such as expanded overland travel rules.
Contradicting existing rules, such as adjusting the balance of existing classes by changing their features.
Changing core parts of how the game works, such as removing skill points and creating a proficiency-based skill system.

The crux of the disagreement that we're seeing here is that Gruftzwerg uses the term "RAW" to encompass only the first of these points while everyone else uses the term to encompass . . . more than that. The question of how much more hasn't been raised, but I suspect that if it were we'd find that we don't agree as much as we think we do.

The key point is that, in order to make this concept useful, we need to abandon the assumption of RAW-ness being categorical. (Also, if we don't abandon that assumption then you're all missing the point because everything a DM does is RAW!)

Gnaeus

2023-10-15, 11:07 AM

However, when applied to DM-facing options, the categorical concept of RAW ceases to be useful:

It is useful insofar that it gives us common ground to discuss things. If we are discussing, for example, the pros and cons of builds with more weaker attacks versus fewer stronger ones, we don't have to, in general, discuss the impacts of the DMs critical failure rules or critical hit chart. It is a shorthand for the common game we play. I can use rule 0 to make massive changes to how my game plays, but unless we are in a thread in which someone in that game is asking for advice, it isn't useful for me to pop into a post and say "x is good or bad because (major houserule, or because my game involves no combat or some other major deviation). RAW is not useful when it doesn't help advance communication. For example, RAW monks being unproficient in unarmed strikes. Maybe that's true RAW. If everyone ignores that, (and every table I have ever seen ignores it), arguing about RAW is pointless, because it does not help you, me, and say Loky or Avatar from having a discussion about how monks work in game. It is only helpful as a baseline for play assumptions, and similarly so that we can do things like challenges without having to explain to all the participants what game we are discussing. That's why the claim that RAW isn't based in consensus is so flawed. If it isn't a basis for mutual understanding, it is entirely lacking in a point.

And in a lot of the cases you mention, it is best to put an * rather than debate the RAW. For example: Truenamer is (un)likely to be able to make this check* (where * indicates whether your DM does or doesn't allow +skill items per the guidelines in item compendium). We don't actually need to figure out if following item building guidelines is RAW or homebrew. We need to point out that it is going to divide tables and your success will vary by your DMs interpretation, (which as you say IS RAW once the DM says it is.)

So, as it relates to this discussion, the RAW is both valuable and settled, in so far as that if I want to participate in a build challenge, it appears to be fairly well established that I can advance monsters by class level and it will be ruled ok by judges and other participants.

Doctor Despair

2023-10-15, 11:23 AM

For example, RAW monks being unproficient in unarmed strikes. Maybe that's true RAW. If everyone ignores that, (and every table I have ever seen ignores it), arguing about RAW is pointless, because it does not help you, me, and say Loki from having a discussion about how monks work in game.

To be fair, that's only humanoid monks because humanoids are not automatically proficient with their natural weapons or simple weapons.

Any other creature type (with one notable exception) is proficient with unarmed strike by merit of natural or simple weapon proficiency, as are any monks who have the shapeshifter subtype.

Meanwhile, humanoid monks lose their simple weapon proficiency when they take their first class level.

Constructs who are humanoid in shape also are only proficient with unarmed strike if it is specifically mentioned in their entry, making warforged monks also a loser in the proficiency wars.

Gnaeus

2023-10-15, 11:28 AM

To be fair, that's only humanoid monks because humanoids are not automatically proficient with their natural weapons or simple weapons.

Any other creature type (with one notable exception) is proficient with unarmed strike by merit of natural or simple weapon proficiency, as are any monks who have the shapeshifter subtype.

Meanwhile, humanoid monks lose their simple weapon proficiency when they take their first class level.

Constructs who are humanoid in shape also are only proficient with unarmed strike if it is specifically mentioned in their entry, making warforged monks also a loser in the proficiency wars.

I believe you. So, if you are sitting down at a table and the player next to you is playing a warforged monk, are you going to argue he has -4 on all attacks? If not, (shrugs). It's just a speed bump in a conversation about how to make your tables monk more functional. "Well ACTUALLY he should be at -4" (DM takes the imaginary PHB and writes improved unarmed strike on the monk entry and proceeds)

Doctor Despair

2023-10-15, 11:33 AM

I believe you. So, if you are sitting down at a table and the player next to you is playing a warforged monk, are you going to argue he has -4 on all attacks? If not, (shrugs).

I'm making an academic point because you brought up that specific example. As a DM, I would give them proficiency because I don't expect my players to enjoy the character-building rule-parsing minigame the same way that I do. As a player, I would not assume that I would have proficiency and would plan to acquire proficiency elsewhere in the build -- and, as monk is often a 1 or 2-level dip anyway, it wouldn't be particularly difficult to do so.

Gnaeus

2023-10-15, 11:35 AM

I'm making an academic point because you brought up that specific example. As a DM, I would give them proficiency because I don't expect my players to enjoy the character-building rule-parsing minigame the same way that I do. .

Exactly. I brought up that specific example because it's 4 paragraphs of rules text that wind up doing nothing. A perfect example of RAW not worth debating because it doesn't inform play or discussion. It's a place where the other acronyms* are clear and clearly control. (* rules as intended, rules as they should be, rules as commonly applied, rules as clearly interpreted in a billion examples by the game designers etc).

loky1109

2023-10-15, 11:38 AM

IAnything and everything that a DM does inside the boundaries of the game is permitted by RAW just becasue a DM is doing it. In other words, the fact that a DM is doing something is a sufficient condition to make it permitted by RAW. So, there you have it: yes, yes, it's all RAW!

That's a rather profoundly useless conclusion - so let's try to add some nuance. There's a sliding scale of how subjectively-close-to-RAW a thing is that a DM does, which includes:

Something printed in the books, such as a version of a monster as it appears in the monster manual.
Something that the rules explicitly suggest, such as creating new spells.
Something that the rules explicitly state is possible but rare, such as advancing a monster's RHD beyond the usual limit.
Implementing variant rules suggested in secondary sourcebooks, such as those in UA.
Extrapolating from existing options and making something that that doesn't contradict existing rules, such as creating a new classes.
Adding new mechanical systems to the game, such as expanded overland travel rules.
Contradicting existing rules, such as adjusting the balance of existing classes by changing their features.
Changing core parts of how the game works, such as removing skill points and creating a proficiency-based skill system.

The crux of the disagreement that we're seeing here is that Gruftzwerg uses the term "RAW" to encompass only the first of these points while everyone else uses the term to encompass . . . more than that.

Actually no. I'm staying on the "only first" position. But I think Gruftzwerg used the term "RAW" even more strictly - only monsters from MM are RAW. Advanced versions - aren't. I wasn't correct.

Herbert_W

2023-10-15, 01:38 PM

Actually no. I'm staying on the "only first" position.

Fair enough.

How do you see your definition of RAW being useful? If the whole community were to agree to use the word RAW in the same way as you do, how would categorizing things as RAW-by-loky1109's-definition vs. not-RAW-by-loky1109's-deninition help us?

Exactly. I brought up that specific example because it's 4 paragraphs of rules text that wind up doing nothing. A perfect example of RAW not worth debating because it doesn't inform play or discussion. It's a place where the other acronyms* are clear and clearly control. (* rules as intended, rules as they should be, rules as commonly applied, rules as clearly interpreted in a billion examples by the game designers etc).

I think you've hit the nail on the head here.

We talk about RAW a lot on these forums here, but what we're more interested in is the rules-as-assumed-by-default: the rules that you can generally assume that a typical game will use. What we're even more interested in is the rules-as-our-DMs-will-apply-them - but since we can't all be on the same page about either of those (especially in the context of theoretical optimization which isn't intended for any specific DM's table) we resort to talking about RAW. It's not quite what we're really interested in, but it is at least possible to establish common ground.

loky1109

2023-10-15, 02:00 PM

Fair enough.

How do you see your definition of RAW being useful? If the whole community were to agree to use the word RAW in the same way as you do, how would categorizing things as RAW-by-loky1109's-definition vs. not-RAW-by-loky1109's-deninition help us?
I think my definition of RAW is very useful. Because it's most common. Actually, I think whole this community share with me the same definition.

Herbert_W

2023-10-15, 02:40 PM

I think my definition of RAW is very useful. Because it's most common. Actually, I think whole this community share with me the same definition.

I think that's . . . very similar to the truth, but not quite true.

The definition of RAW that I'm used to seeing people use is anything that follows the rules, even if it's not a specific example in a book. For example, fighters get a bonus feat at 1st level by RAW (under basically any definition of "RAW"). Saying "OK, and this fighter gets Power Attack specifically" would be RAW as I'm used to seeing the term used - but would you consider "this fighter gets Power Attack specifically" to be RAW?

loky1109

2023-10-15, 03:01 PM

Of course yes it is RAW.

Herbert_W

2023-10-15, 04:14 PM

Of course yes it is RAW.

OK, then I don't understand what your definition of "RAW" is.

A fighter selecting Power Attack is permitted, but not specified, by the rules. You count this as RAW.

A DM making a custom spell is permitted, but not specified, by the rules. You count this as not RAW.

In both cases, the relationship to the rules is "permitted but not specified" i.e. the same. Why then do you count one as RAW and the other not?

loky1109

2023-10-15, 05:06 PM

Herbert_W

2023-10-15, 06:25 PM

No. It isn't the same.
Feat selection not specified, but it's close list of RAW options.
"Custom spell" is open list with only guidelines at the best. Nothing prohibits DM to make 0th level save-or-dye. It clearly isn't RAW. At all.

OK then, you seem to be defining RAW as anything which is all of:

Permitted by the rules, and
a selection from a closed, i.e. not open, list of options, where
the option selected is given, and stated to be a valid choice, in a sourcebook.

In that case, I'd like to point out that your definition of RAW has some odd consequences.

Decide how your character acts, what she likes, what she wants out of life, what scares her, and what makes her angry. Race and alignment are good places to start when thinking about your character’s personality, but they are bad places to stop. Make your lawful good dwarf (or whatever) different from every other lawful good dwarf.

You're told to give your character a personality, but not given a closed list of options to choose from. In fact, the only thing remotely like a specified option is an example specific to one character: "Tordek is lawful, but he's a little greedy." You're either selecting from an open list when you give your character a personality, or if you somehow manage to play a character without any personality, you're not following the rules. Either way, every character fails one of your two criteria for being RAW.

You could append another term to your definition of RAW to avoid this, such as:

Character choices and action resolution are separate magisteria. Action resolution is RAW if and only if it meets the above definition. Character choice only needs to be permitted by the rules to be RAW (so the "closed vs open list" criteria does not apply here).

. . . but this moves us even further away from the only-the-first-thing position which you earlier claimed to take.

loky1109

2023-10-16, 12:16 AM

Maybe you don't know. R in RAW is for Rules, not for Roleplay. Character personality has nothing to do with RAW, RAI or homebrew.

Gnaeus

2023-10-16, 04:16 PM

OK, then I don't understand what your definition of "RAW" is.

A fighter selecting Power Attack is permitted, but not specified, by the rules. You count this as RAW.

A DM making a custom spell is permitted, but not specified, by the rules. You count this as not RAW.

In both cases, the relationship to the rules is "permitted but not specified" i.e. the same. Why then do you count one as RAW and the other not?

The point is to clarify what exists within game. Power Attack is in a rulebook. It exists as an option in every game where it isn't strictly banned. Gnaeus' Flaming Darts is something I made up. It isn't in any other game. Does it make wizards OP? Does it invalidate some other option? You don't know without reading my house rules. We can't have a common discussion using rules that aren't shared.

But you were correct that there are in between levels of varying commonality. Everyone but Gruftzwerg agrees that a gold dragon with a fighter level is RAW. Its a thing a gold dragon can do. We all understand what that means. We all understand that a scroll of a printed spell is RAW, even if that actual scroll isn't listed in a book anywhere. The spell is printed, what a scroll is is printed.

By the time we hit actual guidelines rather than rules, we hit grey area. I can price boots of +3 tumble from the rules in the SRD. And we all understand what I mean by that and it is based on printed rules. But it is clearly labled as "estimated" prices. Some tables wouldn't blink at a continuous item of protection from evil, and clearly in some games those are very common. Other tables would call that homebrew, or say that it needs to cost more for balance reasons. And some tables would be ok with the +3 gloves but not the permanent pro evil item, despite the fact that they derive from the same estimated values table (and my table is one of those). Very few people would argue that a spell or item that was entirely invented was anything but homebrew. We have very clear rules on how to price a cloak of elvenkind/resistance +2, and I don't think too many people would question you making one in a game, but you might get pushback in a competition.

Herbert_W

2023-10-16, 04:43 PM

Maybe you don't know. R in RAW is for Rules, not for Roleplay. Character personality has nothing to do with RAW, RAI or homebrew.

The distinction between rules and roleplay is one that is deeply embedded in the way that this community understands and interprets roleplaying games - so much so that it's easy to forget that this is came from the community. It's not actually in the rules. As far as the rules are concerned, it's all just rules (at least in 3.5 - 4e is different).

I think it's worth noting that people frequently disagree on where to draw the line between rules and roleplaying/fluff. Heck, there's at least one example of that in this thread! If your definition of RAW requires you to use this distinction to differentiate RAW from not-RAW, then in practice applying your definition of RAW will lead to arguments.

The point is to clarify what exists within game. [...]

I was taking to loky1109 about their particular definition of RAW.

I think we're in perfect agreement here. As I said earlier, in most discussions about RAW serve the purpose establishing common ground about what you can generally assume that a typical game will use.

We all understand that a scroll of a printed spell is RAW, even if that actual scroll isn't listed in a book anywhere. The spell is printed, what a scroll is is printed.

Agreed, agreed.

By the time we hit actual guidelines rather than rules, we hit grey area.

Yes, and I think it's very relevant that 3.5e gives players a whole lot of rules, and DMs a whole lot of guidelines. In a sense, DMs get only guidelines: the rules explicitly allow DMs to do anything.

So, for players, RAW (under the definition of "what the rules say I can do") is a reasonably close metric for rules-as-commonly-implemented and in turn reasonably close to rules-I-can-expect.

For DMs, RAW (under the definition of "what the rules say I can do") is literally anything. It's a very poor metric for anything of interest.

Hence, me saying earlier that this definition of RAW ceases to be useful when applied to DMs.

I think the key point of disagreement is that I think we should acknowledge that RAW is useless as a concept for DMs. If we try to redefine it to make it useful again (say, perhaps, RTWSMP: Rules That Won't Surprise My Players) then we are redefining it and no longer talking about the concept of RAW that's useful to players.

loky1109

2023-10-16, 06:20 PM

The distinction between rules and roleplay is one that is deeply embedded in the way that this community understands and interprets roleplaying games - so much so that it's easy to forget that this is came from the community. It's not actually in the rules. As far as the rules are concerned, it's all just rules (at least in 3.5 - 4e is different).

I think it's worth noting that people frequently disagree on where to draw the line between rules and roleplaying/fluff. Heck, there's at least one example of that in this thread! If your definition of RAW requires you to use this distinction to differentiate RAW from not-RAW, then in practice applying your definition of RAW will lead to arguments.

I don't understand at all why did you start to talk about character's personality. Character's personality isn't part of rules (in D&D 3.0/3.5) and therefore can't be part of RAW/Homebrew discussion. Where did you take it from?
Yeah, there are some limitations (paladin, vile/exalted feats, etc.), but these limitations are very broad. As I could see you're trying to strict topic.

I was taking to loky1109 about their particular definition of RAW.
His. Please.

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-18, 05:30 AM

And what?...

My point is that Beholder with 12 HD (you call it RAW content) already is "different version".
"Different versions" doesn't mean homebrew content.

While I get to what you mean here, the way the rules talk about versions imply that you are advancing this version to get an "advanced version" of it.

You used pretty bad wording. I (and I think not only I) understood your point as "any changes in the monster's statblok is homebrew" where any means really any. Do you add HD to beholder? Homebrew! Do you add wizard level to elf? Homebrew!

Because you all ignored that I was talking from my showcase builder's perspective who may not rely on "rule 0" since I am not the DM and have to rely on a theoretical RAW dummy DM which won't use "rule 0" in my favor.

You failed to apply the context under which the statement was given!

Ehm...
It was right here:

It clearly is permission for every intelligent creature to replace HD with a level in a character class.

"Often" is an indicator that this is just a statement and not a rule (since a rule is for everyone, unless an exception is called out). As said multiple times, the rules like to often make general statements aka fluff text that doesn't have any impact on rules. But that doesn't mean that you can ignore the specific creature's "Advancement:" entry, nor the definition of that specific entry. ("by HD" in the case of beholders).

But you don't need change it.

My point it's RAW content because you don't need change advancement line.
So the advancement line/stat doesn't have any mechanical value and is just fluff text for you?

Sorry, but a stat can't be fluff text. It has to have a mechanical impact. Otherwise it wouldn't be a stat..

Imho it isn't.

Because you are talking about if is is legal for a DM RAW to do so, has the permission by RAW.

But I was and still am talking from a forum-showcase builder's perspective who ain't the DM. You are constantly ignoring the context here.

And just because the community has defined what RAW is/means, doesn't mean that it can have different meanings depending on the context. And the context to differentiate here is if it's RAW content or homebrew and not if it it's RAW legal or not.

And to even expand on this...
"Rule 0" is a term that was born especially due to this problem.
Because anything a "DM does is RAW" we like to point out that the DM can make these kind of drastic changes if he wishes.

But all that doesn't help me when making a build for forum showcases or form contests. Because there I am not the DM.

Please, use words carefully. If you told word "definition" your opponents could understand this as you told word "definition". Please try to apply context when reading stuff..

I'm late to the party, but let me offer a third perspective.

The distinctions between "RAW" and "RAI" and "homebrew" are lines that the community drew that help us to categorize player-facing options. In the context of player-facing options, these concepts are categorical: for each of these categories, something either is or isn't. (There may be varying degrees of clarity or certainly of a category membership, but that's not the same thing as category membership itself admitting varying degrees.)
...

The crux of the disagreement that we're seeing here is that Gruftzwerg uses the term "RAW" to encompass only the first of these points while everyone else uses the term to encompass . . . more than that. The question of how much more hasn't been raised, but I suspect that if it were we'd find that we don't agree as much as we think we do.

The key point is that, in order to make this concept useful, we need to abandon the assumption of RAW-ness being categorical. (Also, if we don't abandon that assumption then you're all missing the point because everything a DM does is RAW!)
I fully agree with what you have said. But to my defense, the original statement was in my Theoretical Optimization Build Showcase. The context is that I as a builder may not rely on homebrew content nor on houserules. While RAW definitively permits a DM to do such things, we classify such things as homebrew content when it comes to showcases and forum contests.

Would anybody allow forum contest entry with an Animal Companion where the player exchanged the base feats of the monster entry? No, because it's homebrew content and not RAW.

People failed to see the context that I was talking about RAW content and not RAW legality here.

And even if we would talk about RAW legality here. As said to Loki, we would point out "rule 0" when being used.
Imho statements like "... that is not RAW. You would need to apply rule 0 for that!" are common replies by the community.

It is useful insofar that it gives us common ground to discuss things. If we are discussing, for example, the pros and cons of builds with more weaker attacks versus fewer stronger ones, we don't have to, in general, discuss the impacts of the DMs critical failure rules or critical hit chart. It is a shorthand for the common game we play. I can use rule 0 to make massive changes to how my game plays, but unless we are in a thread in which someone in that game is asking for advice, it isn't useful for me to pop into a post and say "x is good or bad because (major houserule, or because my game involves no combat or some other major deviation). RAW is not useful when it doesn't help advance communication. For example, RAW monks being unproficient in unarmed strikes. Maybe that's true RAW. If everyone ignores that, (and every table I have ever seen ignores it), arguing about RAW is pointless, because it does not help you, me, and say Loky or Avatar from having a discussion about how monks work in game. It is only helpful as a baseline for play assumptions, and similarly so that we can do things like challenges without having to explain to all the participants what game we are discussing. That's why the claim that RAW isn't based in consensus is so flawed. If it isn't a basis for mutual understanding, it is entirely lacking in a point.

And in a lot of the cases you mention, it is best to put an * rather than debate the RAW. For example: Truenamer is (un)likely to be able to make this check* (where * indicates whether your DM does or doesn't allow +skill items per the guidelines in item compendium). We don't actually need to figure out if following item building guidelines is RAW or homebrew. We need to point out that it is going to divide tables and your success will vary by your DMs interpretation, (which as you say IS RAW once the DM says it is.)

So, as it relates to this discussion, the RAW is both valuable and settled, in so far as that if I want to participate in a build challenge, it appears to be fairly well established that I can advance monsters by class level and it will be ruled ok by judges and other participants.
Agree again. And as said, in a Theoretical Optimization I talk about RAW from a theoretical player's perceptive and not from a DM's perspective with access to rule 0.
If that doesn't give enough hint how the term "RAW" was used there I dunno.

For those interested, this is the quote from the TO build that caused this discussion:

(Note that by RAW beholders advance by adding racial HD and can't advance by class levels. This leaves only transformation cheese with other races as sole possible base option to enter Beholder Mage by RAW.)

Actually no. I'm staying on the "only first" position. But I think Gruftzwerg used the term "RAW" even more strictly - only monsters from MM are RAW. Advanced versions - aren't. I wasn't correct.
An Advanced Version is RAW content as long as you follow the rules according to your "Adcanvement:" line's entry and the fitting definition to that. Thus a RAW (content) version of a Beholder can only advance by HD (unless you somehow to something about it. maybe add a template that allows it to advance by class?) unless you create a different version with "by class" as advancement option.

Adding (maybe altering) options ain't the same as changing stats for no obvious reason. The latter is definitively not the same (most common) version anymore, nor is it an advanced version of the same (most common) version anymore.

loky1109

2023-10-18, 06:34 AM

I'm angry now.

Because you all ignored that I was talking from my showcase builder's perspective who may not rely on "rule 0" since I am not the DM and have to rely on a theoretical RAW dummy DM which won't use "rule 0" in my favor..

But I was and still am talking from a forum-showcase builder's perspective who ain't the DM. You are constantly ignoring the context here.

"Rule 0" is a term that was born especially due to this problem.

And even if we would talk about RAW legality here. As said to Loki, we would point out "rule 0" when being used.
https://y.yarn.co/6eee0738-cced-44cd-a99a-b9280eb2332c_text.gif
I told nothing about "rule 0" and I was talking this to you again and again. I told about RAW.
Please stop talking me what I'm talking about and start to read.

"Often" is an indicator that this is just a statement and not a rule (since a rule is for everyone, unless an exception is called out).
So any rule where we have options to select from isn't rule, yes?

Everyone can, but not everyone do. That’s what "often" means.

As said multiple times, the rules like to often make general statements aka fluff text that doesn't have any impact on rules.
It's from description of paragraphs of monster description. The very base of MM structure. If it isn't rule nothing is.

But that doesn't mean that you can ignore the specific creature's "Advancement:" entry, nor the definition of that specific entry. ("by HD" in the case of beholders).
I don't ignore. You don't understand correctly.

So the advancement line/stat doesn't have any mechanical value and is just fluff text for you?
No. It isn't fluff. It is rule. This rule says that "by HD" means "you could replace HD with character class level than advance monster (if monster is intelligent)". It is RAW. But you are free to ignore it of course.

Sorry, but a stat can't be fluff text. It has to have a mechanical impact.
Exactly!

Imho it isn't.
Because you are talking about if is is legal for a DM RAW to do so, has the permission by RAW.
I just return you your Imho. You are the first who bring imho point here. Don't blame me.
My imho against your imho. I don't see why your should be stronger.
And one more time again: no, I'm not "talking about if is is legal for a DM RAW to do so" I'm talking it is strong RAW. For everybody.

Please try to apply context when reading stuff..
Sorry, but no. Context can't help you. If you're talking "definition...definition...definition..." and then it turns out that "in context" your "definition" means not definition, but some "theoretical concept" (which I'm not sure you use correctly either) and there is no definition at all, it isn't my fault it's yours. We aren't telepaths, we can't understand each other without correctly used words.

Would anybody allow forum contest entry with an Animal Companion where the player exchanged the base feats of the monster entry? No, because it's homebrew content and not RAW.
Yes, because it's RAW content and not homebrew.

AvatarVecna

2023-10-18, 09:13 AM

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/wowpedia/images/0/0a/Waist_of_Time.jpg

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-18, 09:53 AM

No. It isn't fluff. It is rule.

Tangent, but on the topic of RAW:

I'm curious. Where in the rules does it make an explicit difference between "things that are fluff and therefore not actual rules" and "things that are mechanical and are therefore actual rules you have to obey"? This is one of those things that's always made me a bit confused about hard-RAW discussions--if the text is the thing, you need to have hard, unambiguous statements about how to read the rules. And you can't go discarding pieces of the text without such explicit permission.

Personally, discussions about whether something is or is not RAW are just as useful (or probably less useful because they cause arguments) as trying to enumerate the digits of pi. The only rules that matter are the rules decided on by the community at issue for the topic at hand. At a table, that's Rules as Played at that Table, whether textually-founded or not--nothing else matters. For forums, all that matters is Rules as Commonly Accepted, again regardless of their textual adherence or not.

AvatarVecna

2023-10-18, 11:58 AM

Tangent, but on the topic of RAW:

I'm curious. Where in the rules does it make an explicit difference between "things that are fluff and therefore not actual rules" and "things that are mechanical and are therefore actual rules you have to obey"? This is one of those things that's always made me a bit confused about hard-RAW discussions--if the text is the thing, you need to have hard, unambiguous statements about how to read the rules. And you can't go discarding pieces of the text without such explicit permission.

It's something that, as far as I know, isn't explicitly written down anywhere. It's more just a thing that needs to exist for times when clearly-mechanical text and clearly-not-mechanical text conflict and we have to decide which take precedence. Such a "rule" follows in the footsteps of actual rules like "text trumps table", or arguments about primary sources - other places where the game might have two pieces of text that contradict each other, in which case a valuation is made on which one is to take precedence. It's also generally taken as the rule because the alternative, where fluff can trump mechanics, doesn't help answer the question of "so what does this actually do", explicitly because the fluff text isn't mechanical in nature. It can get tricky at times because there is rarely a straightforward demarcation of what text is fluff and what is mechanical in the actual books, and arguments about where to draw the line can happen, because some things can in fact be mechanical text despite a dearth of mechanical signifiers (a lot of mechanics regarding social interaction can be like this). It's a nod to the fact that, even in the strictest interpretation of things, we do generally have to actually use our brains and linguistic intuition to figure out which sections of text are safe to ignore. We even have to do this with mechanical text to an extent because some text discussing mechanics is not dictating mechanics, even if it could theoretically be read that way.

Abilities: The Abilities entry tells you which abilities are most important for a character of that class. Players are welcome to “play against type,” but a typical character of that class will have his or her highest ability scores where they’ll do the most good (or, in game world terms, be attracted to the class that most suits his or her talents or for which he or she is best qualified).

This is near the start of the class section of the player's handbook. It makes it very clear what this section is about for each class: it will provide advice on what attributes are worth investing in and which ones are not, and will point out things each one contributes to. These will be sections touching on mechanical optimization, but there is nothing saying that the text within is actual RULES. But on the flip side, there is also no text saying that the text within isn't actual rules.

GAME RULE INFORMATION
Monks have the following game statistics.
Abilities: Wisdom powers the monk’s special offensive and defensive capabilities. Dexterity provides the unarmored monk with a better defense and with bonuses to some class skills. Strength helps a monk’s unarmed combat ability.
Alignment: Any lawful.
Hit Die: d8.

This is not fluff text by any means. We are discussing mechanics here, unambiguously. However, if anybody looked at this paragraph, and then said "strength penalties don't apply to monk's unarmed strike, because strength helps that", they would be rightfully mocked.

Personally, discussions about whether something is or is not RAW are just as useful (or probably less useful because they cause arguments) as trying to enumerate the digits of pi. The only rules that matter are the rules decided on by the community at issue for the topic at hand. At a table, that's Rules as Played at that Table, whether textually-founded or not--nothing else matters. For forums, all that matters is Rules as Commonly Accepted, again regardless of their textual adherence or not.

RAW discussions are useful for figuring out the base state of the game. Obviously RAW doesn't trump the DM at your actual table no matter what, but it remains useful to have a grounded, firm, agreed-upon standard for what the game is actually like. While sometimes the nitty gritty of things can cause people to argue about RAW, generally once enough people have eyeballs on a thing, it's pretty settled - we can argue about how the rules were intended to work, or about how they should work, or about how they should be changed, but most of the time "what is the rule that's actually written down on the page" is a very straightforward thing. Having a solid foundation, an agreement on the actual state of the game, allows for better follow-up discussions on effects that strict reading has on other aspects of the system, on whether the rule should be kept or changed or discarded by DMs, on how the RAW might differ from the RAI and how using one or the other affects real people at a table.

Communities like this are not made of RAI mobs, ever-ready to break out the torches and pitchforks if anyone dares to read something other than designer intent into the words on the page. It's a community of nitpickers and rules lawyers and devil's advocates, ready to strip things down to basic linguistic principles to figure out the One True Reading, even if a proposed reading challenges longtime assumptions held by the community. The list of people in the community capable of successfully reading the rules with an eye towards the Rules As Written is not, in fact, one name long, no matter how much some people throughout the years might have thought otherwise.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-18, 12:02 PM

It's something that, as far as I know, isn't explicitly written down anywhere. It's more just a thing that needs to exist for times when clearly-mechanical text and clearly-not-mechanical text conflict and we have to decide which take precedence. Such a "rule" follows in the footsteps of actual rules like "text trumps table", or arguments about primary sources - other places where the game might have two pieces of text that contradict each other, in which case a valuation is made on which one is to take precedence. It's also generally taken as the rule because the alternative, where fluff can trump mechanics, doesn't help answer the question of "so what does this actually do", explicitly because the fluff text isn't mechanical in nature. It can get tricky at times because there is rarely a straightforward demarcation of what text is fluff and what is mechanical in the actual books, and arguments about where to draw the line can happen, because some things can in fact be mechanical text despite a dearth of mechanical signifiers (a lot of mechanics regarding social interaction can be like this). It's a nod to the fact that, even in the strictest interpretation of things, we do generally have to actually use our brains and linguistic intuition to figure out which sections of text are safe to ignore. We even have to do this with mechanical text to an extent because some text discussing mechanics is not dictating mechanics, even if it could theoretically be read that way.

This is near the start of the class section of the player's handbook. It makes it very clear what this section is about for each class: it will provide advice on what attributes are worth investing in and which ones are not, and will point out things each one contributes to. These will be sections touching on mechanical optimization, but there is nothing saying that the text within is actual RULES. But on the flip side, there is also no text saying that the text within isn't actual rules.

This is not fluff text by any means. We are discussing mechanics here, unambiguously. However, if anybody looked at this paragraph, and then said "strength penalties don't apply to monk's unarmed strike, because strength helps that", they would be rightfully mocked.

RAW discussions are useful for figuring out the base state of the game. Obviously RAW doesn't trump the DM at your actual table no matter what, but it remains useful to have a grounded, firm, agreed-upon standard for what the game is actually like. While sometimes the nitty gritty of things can cause people to argue about RAW, generally once enough people have eyeballs on a thing, it's pretty settled - we can argue about how the rules were intended to work, or about how they should work, or about how they should be changed, but most of the time "what is the rule that's actually written down on the page" is a very straightforward thing. Having a solid foundation, an agreement on the actual state of the game, allows for better follow-up discussions on effects that strict reading has on other aspects of the system, on whether the rule should be kept or changed or discarded by DMs, on how the RAW might differ from the RAI and how using one or the other affects real people at a table.

Communities like this are not made of RAI mobs, ever-ready to break out the torches and pitchforks if anyone dares to read something other than designer intent into the words on the page. It's a community of nitpickers and rules lawyers and devil's advocates, ready to strip things down to basic linguistic principles to figure out the One True Reading, even if a proposed reading challenges longtime assumptions held by the community. The list of people in the community capable of successfully reading the rules with an eye towards the Rules As Written is not, in fact, one name long, no matter how much some people throughout the years might have thought otherwise.

Here's the thing. If the text is the only thing that matters...none of that is relevant. The whole split between "mechanics" and "non-mechanics" is interpretation, added because people want to ignore some rules. There is no definition of mechanics in the text. There is no definition of fluff. Thus, fluff vs mechanics is not hard-RAW. It's all subjective interpretation. Which I'm totally fine with, but it makes the hard-RAW position (which people upthread are explicitly taking) to be somewhat...hard. Basically, once you take the hard-RAW position, the text becomes self-contradictory--any resolution of those contradictions is outside of/violates RAW itself.

I'm not arguing against reading the rules...I'm arguing that the hard-RAW position is more pointless than most rules debates. That the only rules that matter are the consensus ones for whatever community you happen to be in. Here, we may call those "RAW", but they're only weakly related to the actual text, and "RAW vs not-RAW" is used as a weapon more than it is as an attempt to actually reach consensus. I'm arguing that the "X is RAW/X is not RAW" debates are utterly pointless, because "RAW" is not well defined. And doesn't actually matter for anything anyway--it never claims any binding force on its own terms. Thus, the answer is "meh, doesn't matter. But does X match our community consensus as to the rules?"

As for the value...yeah. These threads and these forums are full of proof that there isn't a grounded, firm, agreed-upon standard for what the game is actually like once you depart from the obvious stuff. Thus, relying on RAW is, in my opinion, futile--the things it helps with are the things that no one disagrees on; the things where you need its help are the things people don't agree on what is RAW!

JNAProductions

2023-10-18, 12:04 PM

Here's the thing. If the text is the only thing that matters...none of that is relevant. The whole split between "mechanics" and "non-mechanics" is interpretation, added because people want to ignore some rules. There is no definition of mechanics in the text. There is no definition of fluff. Thus, fluff vs mechanics is not hard-RAW. It's all subjective interpretation. Which I'm totally fine with, but it makes the hard-RAW position (which people upthread are explicitly taking) to be somewhat...hard.

As for the value...yeah. These threads and these forums are full of proof that there isn't a grounded, firm, agreed-upon standard for what the game is actually like once you depart from the obvious stuff. Thus, relying on RAW is, in my opinion, futile--the things it helps with are the things that no one disagrees on; the things where you need its help are the things people don't agree on what is RAW!

Abilities: The Abilities entry tells you which abilities are most important for a character of that class. Players are welcome to “play against type,” but a typical character of that class will have his or her highest ability scores where they’ll do the most good (or, in game world terms, be attracted to the class that most suits his or her talents or for which he or she is best qualified).

GAME RULE INFORMATION
Monks have the following game statistics.
Abilities: Wisdom powers the monk’s special offensive and defensive capabilities. Dexterity provides the unarmored monk with a better defense and with bonuses to some class skills. Strength helps a monk’s unarmed combat ability.
Alignment: Any lawful.
Hit Die: d8.

If I make a Monk who's highest score is Constitution, that goes against what's said in the Abilities section of the Monk and the introduction to Abilities. There are three scores mentioned-Wisdom, Dexterity, and Strength. By your reading, no Monk can ever have a highest score that is not one of those three.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-18, 12:14 PM

If I make a Monk who's highest score is Constitution, that goes against what's said in the Abilities section of the Monk and the introduction to Abilities. There are three scores mentioned-Wisdom, Dexterity, and Strength. By your reading, no Monk can ever have a highest score that is not one of those three.

I'm totally 100% fine with doing otherwise. My point is that the text itself doesn't say you can do that, so you can't IFF you are using the "the rules text is the only thing you can use" form of RAW. My entire point is to point out that that position (the hard-RAW) position leads to an utter mess and is unworkable, and so arguing about whether something fits that interpretation is utterly pointless.

My point is that all text requires interpretation, and to think otherwise results in absurdity. I'm in favor of just never mentioning "RAW" as a meaningful thing again and worrying about whatever rules the community, as a whole, reaches consensus on. Those are the interpretations that have any meaning. They may be strongly influenced by the text, but trying to do a hard-RAW reading gets no one anywhere, unless your goal is to cause fights.

ixrisor

2023-10-18, 12:23 PM

Gruftzwerg, I’d like to point out another example of a monster stat which is “fluff”: alignment. If you go to the alignment section, it will tell you that “always Lawful Evil” doesn’t actually mean that every single devil is LE, it merely means that exceptions are incredibly rare. In the same way, advancement by HD doesn’t mean “only by hd”, it means “normally by HD”, as can be seen in the sections of the MM that talk about advancing monsters.

AvatarVecna

2023-10-18, 01:49 PM

https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExYzVxMm5xNXN2M21xNzRqZXhpbjFnbnk 2ZWJldndjdG82YjkzazFvcSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfY nlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/qmfpjpAT2fJRK/giphy.gif

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-18, 04:32 PM

I'm angry now.

https://y.yarn.co/6eee0738-cced-44cd-a99a-b9280eb2332c_text.gif
I told nothing about "rule 0" and I was talking this to you again and again. I told about RAW.
Please stop talking me what I'm talking about and start to read.

Angry? Why? Maybe you didn't get the point what I said:

What you are pointing out as RAW: "The DM may do anything" is what the community has defined as Rule 0.

And the term RAW content is defined by excluding "Rule 0". Otherwise as said, everything any DM ever created is RAW content and the term RAW losses any value for our communities communication. It would lose it purpose if RAW content would include all homebrew stuff. If I go with your interpretation, there is no homebrew, because everything is RAW. But the community created these term for explicitly that reason: to differentiate between RAW; RAI & Homebrew/Houserule.

We all know that all homebrew content and all houserules are RAW legal. But that point of view/interpretation doesn't help the communication. We like to differentiate between homebrew or not. But you interpretation of RAW leaves no room for homebrew, since it includes it. It's a logically useless definition.

You think that you talk about RAW, while your definition is actually talking about "Rule 0". Sorry to say it but that definition already belongs to "Rule 0".

So any rule where we have options to select from isn't rule, yes?

Everyone can, but not everyone do. That’s what "often" means.

Often is not Everybody. Everybody would indicate a rule, since it applies to "everybody".
"Often Germans prefer to drive German cars."
Does that mean that now every German drives a german car?
Or that every german may even drive (license) a german car?
It's just a statement what is often the case. It doesn't give any permission, nor does it disallow or forbid something.

Any language has words that can indicate things, like statements without mechanical relevance for the individual, or things that indicate mechanical relevance. This ain't something 3.5 has invented..

I really have to ask how you are communicating if you freely exchange things like "often" with "always" in your communication. Imho this sounds very problematic .

It's from description of paragraphs of monster description. The very base of MM structure. If it isn't rule nothing is.

Doesn't chance that that the text is talking about what is "often" the case and not what "everybody" is allowed to do.
You can't simply exchange often with everybody here. The words have different mechanical impacts.

I don't ignore. You don't understand correctly.
You clearly ignore the general rules for Improving Monsters because of a statement in the Advancement line. Even if it wouldn't be a statement, the rules for Improving Monsters are not found in the definition for the Advancement line in a monster entry. A specific monster could have a specific Advancement (there are some examples IIRC).
But the Advancement line itself doesn't create a more specific topic for Improving Monsters. It's still talking about advancing by HD or class. Since it ain't more specific, it can't trump the general rules presented.

Exactly!
If I can exchange the Advancement line stat of a monster as I wish (as you said), the stat loses all mechanical value. It has no meaning from your point of view, because I can exchange it as I like. How does the Advancement line provide any mechanical value under your interpretation if we can exchange it as we like?

I just return you your Imho. You are the first who bring imho point here. Don't blame me.
My imho against your imho. I don't see why your should be stronger.
And one more time again: no, I'm not "talking about if is is legal for a DM RAW to do so" I'm talking it is strong RAW. For everybody.

So my homebrew content and houserules are now RAW legal for all forum contests?
And what happens if my houserules are in conflict with your houserules. Both are RAW now. And what about the rules of the people who aren't even using this forum. How do we know if we break RAW when we don't know how they play?
And how do you answer any rule questions at all? Maybe your answer in thread XYZ is in conflict with my tables rules. How dare you

All these questions just because you insist that all content is not just RAW legal, but also RAW content. Sorry but the community did create these terms exactly for this specific reason.

Sorry, but no. Context can't help you. If you're talking "definition...definition...definition..." and then it turns out that "in context" your "definition" means not definition, but some "theoretical concept" (which I'm not sure you use correctly either) and there is no definition at all, it isn't my fault it's yours. We aren't telepaths, we can't understand each other without correctly used words.
How do you interpret the simple word "you" without context? It is definitively defined in the English language, but you still always rely on context. Same with the community created term RAW. It can be used to to say if something is legal without relying on rule 0 and it can also be used to exclude homebrew. All in one term. Yeah that is possible. Base use of language and nothing 3.5 specific.

Tangent, but on the topic of RAW:

I'm curious. Where in the rules does it make an explicit difference between "things that are fluff and therefore not actual rules" and "things that are mechanical and are therefore actual rules you have to obey"? This is one of those things that's always made me a bit confused about hard-RAW discussions--if the text is the thing, you need to have hard, unambiguous statements about how to read the rules. And you can't go discarding pieces of the text without such explicit permission.

Personally, discussions about whether something is or is not RAW are just as useful (or probably less useful because they cause arguments) as trying to enumerate the digits of pi. The only rules that matter are the rules decided on by the community at issue for the topic at hand. At a table, that's Rules as Played at that Table, whether textually-founded or not--nothing else matters. For forums, all that matters is Rules as Commonly Accepted, again regardless of their textual adherence or not.
It's not always obviously indicated. But let me try to sum up what I can recall:

1. The Primary Source Rule (PSR)
The PSR always checks if there are any rules higher in the topic or book hierarchy that contradicts anything presented.

In this case, Improving Monsters and its subtopics "by HD" and "by class" are the primary source. If you want to advance "by class" because your "Advancement:" line entry allowed you to do so, you have to follow the rules presented there.
And the rules for advancing "by class" explicitly tell us:

Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line. When a monster adds a class level, that level usually represents an increase in experience and learned skills and capabilities.

most commonly = indicator that this ain't forcing anything on everyone (see 4.)
Creatures that fall into this category = indicator for the relevant rule mechanics for "this category". (see 4a.)

2. "plain language"
Short descriptions of feats and spells often use the term "plain language" to say that it is just an oversimplified overview that maybe not 100% fully correct. If you physics teacher tries to explain something complicated in plain language, does this become 100% technically correct (e.g. for an exam)? No, because it lacks the specific corrects terms. Same here. Plain Language != Rules

3. italic text parts
While italic if also used for Spellnames, it is also often used as visual indicator for fluff text (e.g. Spell descriptions). IIRC there is even an instance where the rules tell this, but I maybe remembering this wrong and maybe think of FAQ; Rules of the Game or same Sage advice. At least I can't find the rule atm.

4. words that indicate that something ain't strict for everyone or that something ain't always the case.
Words like "often", "usually", "rarely", "may" sometimes all indicate that something ain't strict. You are just given some side info (aka Fluff text). When I say "I often drink black tea", it doesn't mean that I always drink black tea, nor that I have to drink black tea at all.

4a. The opposite is also true. There are words that indicate that something is strict.
Word like "always", "must", "never", "have to" all force you to follow what is being said. Indicators like these force a rule upon us.

Gruftzwerg, I’d like to point out another example of a monster stat which is “fluff”: alignment. If you go to the alignment section, it will tell you that “always Lawful Evil” doesn’t actually mean that every single devil is LE, it merely means that exceptions are incredibly rare. In the same way, advancement by HD doesn’t mean “only by hd”, it means “normally by HD”, as can be seen in the sections of the MM that talk about advancing monsters.

Incredibly Rare != most common version
Incredibly Rare = different version

I never implied that you can't create other versions. Just that creating a different version (even if it's sole a different alignment) would be considered homebrew content. RAW legal, but homebrew content and not RAW content.

PhoenixPhyre

2023-10-18, 05:50 PM

It's not always obviously indicated. But let me try to sum up what I can recall:

1. The Primary Source Rule (PSR)
The PSR always checks if there are any rules higher in the topic or book hierarchy that contradicts anything presented.

In this case, Improving Monsters and its subtopics "by HD" and "by class" are the primary source. If you want to advance "by class" because your "Advancement:" line entry allowed you to do so, you have to follow the rules presented there.
And the rules for advancing "by class" explicitly tell us:

most commonly = indicator that this ain't forcing anything on everyone (see 4.)
Creatures that fall into this category = indicator for the relevant rule mechanics for "this category". (see 4a.)

2. "plain language"
Short descriptions of feats and spells often use the term "plain language" to say that it is just an oversimplified overview that maybe not 100% fully correct. If you physics teacher tries to explain something complicated in plain language, does this become 100% technically correct (e.g. for an exam)? No, because it lacks the specific corrects terms. Same here. Plain Language != Rules

3. italic text parts
While italic if also used for Spellnames, it is also often used as visual indicator for fluff text (e.g. Spell descriptions). IIRC there is even an instance where the rules tell this, but I maybe remembering this wrong and maybe think of FAQ; Rules of the Game or same Sage advice. At least I can't find the rule atm.

4. words that indicate that something ain't strict for everyone or that something ain't always the case.
Words like "often", "usually", "rarely", "may" sometimes all indicate that something ain't strict. You are just given some side info (aka Fluff text). When I say "I often drink black tea", it doesn't mean that I always drink black tea, nor that I have to drink black tea at all.

4a. The opposite is also true. There are words that indicate that something is strict.
Word like "always", "must", "never", "have to" all force you to follow what is being said. Indicators like these force a rule upon us.

That's a great interpretation...but find me the actual rule that says exactly that. Because you haven't, you've only given your interpretation of the rule text (an interpretation that basically no one here shares, so it's not self-evidently true). None of which is RAW by any reasonable meaning of that term.

My whole point is that all text requires interpretation. And interpretation is always subjective. Thus, RAW is a meaningless, useless term. And worrying about whether something is "RAW" or not is utterly beyond pointless.

loky1109

2023-10-18, 06:09 PM

What you are pointing out as RAW: "The DM may do anything" is what the community has defined as Rule 0.
Are you serious?
How should I say it?
I don't talk about "rule 0" and "DM created content". I talk about RAW. RAW that exists in rulebooks. Excluding "rule 0" and "DM created content".
It looks like you kidding me.

This:

The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra HD. Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die.
isn't "DM created content". It's rule from Monster Manual.

If you one more time will try to attribute to me something about "rule 0" - I'll add you to ignore list. Forever. Because I don’t see the point of talking to a man who’s talking to voices in his head instead of me.

Often is not Everybody. Everybody would indicate a rule, since it applies to "everybody".
Fighters often select Power Attack feat.
Is selecting Power Attack feat for fighter against rules?
Could fighters often at all select Power Attack feat if it is against rules?

"Often Germans prefer to drive German cars."
Does that mean that now every German drives a german car?
Or that every german may even drive (license) a german car?
It's just a statement what is often the case. It doesn't give any permission, nor does it disallow or forbid something.
It does mean that any German could drive german car and directly permit driving german cars for Germans (there are specific exceptions of this general rule).

I really have to ask how you are communicating if you freely exchange things like "often" with "always" in your communication.
It calls logics. I not only exchange "often" with "always", but also exchange "do" with "can".

But the Advancement line itself doesn't create a more specific topic for Improving Monsters.
Yes, Advancement line is more general rule than Improving Monsters. And I has supremacy. Plus, actually, nothing in Improving Monsters contradicts Advancement line.

If I can exchange the Advancement line stat of a monster as I wish (as you said)
I. Didn't. Say. That. No. One. ***. Time!

You don't need to exchange the Advancement line to advance Beholder with class levels. It already permitted without changes.

So my homebrew content and houserules are now RAW legal for all forum contests?
Go and check.

All these questions just because you insist that all content is not just RAW legal, but also RAW content. Sorry but the community did create these terms exactly for this specific reason.
Sorry, but as I see you are not very good at reading. I didn't insist nonsense that you're trying to attribute to me. You are talking to someone else.

In this case, Improving Monsters and its subtopics "by HD" and "by class" are the primary source.
PSR starts to work when there are contradicts between different books. But well, let it works within single book, too.
Who did designate primary source between "Improving Monsters" and "Advancement line description"?

Words like "often", "usually", "rarely", "may" sometimes all indicate that something ain't strict. You are just given some side info (aka Fluff text).
Well. We couldn't use Monster Manual. Because Organization, Treasure, Environment, Feats, Special Attacks and Special Qualities, Name, Alignment, and Advancement lines of monster descriptions have no rules behind them and are fluff.

When I say "I often drink black tea", it doesn't mean that I always drink black tea, nor that I have to drink black tea at all.
In your terms when you say "I often drink black tea", this means "I never drink black tea".

I never implied that you can't create other versions. Just that creating a different version (even if it's sole a different alignment) would be considered homebrew content.
What is RAW content version of Ghost (Alignment: any)? Be warned: Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Good, Neutral Neutral, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil are different versions and that means are homebrew.

Arcanist

2023-10-18, 09:08 PM

Sad to see that the judges either didn't care or weren't aware of the issue (since we all tend to be more trained in PC creation than monster advancement).
But on the other hand, the several monster/villain challenges already operate on a changed ruleset (e.g. allowing monsters with no official LA or being CR based in the first place).
So, imho it's easier for the judges to get mislead here. (no offense against the judges here btw).

You can't be serious. You can't sincerely be THIS guy?
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/019/899/skinner.jpg

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-22, 01:51 AM

That's a great interpretation...but find me the actual rule that says exactly that. Because you haven't, you've only given your interpretation of the rule text (an interpretation that basically no one here shares, so it's not self-evidently true). None of which is RAW by any reasonable meaning of that term.

Remind you that RAW is a community created term and not an officially created term. So you won't find any explicit rule covering all the mentioned options here. But that doesn't mean that we don't have a base here at all.

1:PSR
As said, the PSR dictates topic and book precedence. You can find the PSR in most ERRATA since WotC failed to insert it into the core books where it actually belongs into.

2: plain language != rule language or plain language != specific 3.5 language
If you wanna argue against this, I would kindly ask which argument you have. Why are the rules telling us that this is plain language? For no reason? Could they also have said "this is English language" to provide a totally useless statement?
"Plain Language" is used to point out that this maybe ain't 100% correct in mechanical terms. Otherwise the term makes no sense within the 3.5 rules.

3: italic text
Read some italic text within the rules. Sooner or later you will have dozens of instances where it contradicts the actual rule text.
Also note the spell "Rouse" from phb2 here. The spell was printed only with italic text and was changed in the ERRATA for exactly that reason. They sole included the italic part into the non-italic part of the description. Nothing else was changed.

4: indicator words
I hope that I don't need to explain the default definition of English words here. Some words can carry "mechanical/technical" information.

My whole point is that all text requires interpretation. And interpretation is always subjective. Thus, RAW is a meaningless, useless term. And worrying about whether something is "RAW" or not is utterly beyond pointless.

Have a look at this PHB quote:

Half-elf men are
taller and heavier than half-elf women, but the difference is less
pronounced than that found among humans.
Show me how you are applying this rule? How do you check that a female half-elf is not taller or heavier than any half-elf male in existence. Note that the text doesn't water down the statement with words like "some/often/..". It's a straight statement for all half-elves.

And what do you do with the conflict that it creates with the actual character size rules on page 109 and on table 6-6 "Random height and weight".

From my point of view, the quote ain't part of the Primary Source and thus the PSR ignores any parts contradicting the Primary Source. It effectively becomes "fluff text" that just provides an oversimplified overview over the topic. But it ain't a hard rule.

But according to you it's still rule text that needs to be interpreted. What is your solution here?

Are you serious?
How should I say it?
I don't talk about "rule 0" and "DM created content". I talk about RAW. RAW that exists in rulebooks. Excluding "rule 0" and "DM created content".
It looks like you kidding me.
No I am talking about the logic behind the community created terms "RAW" and "Rule 0".

The term RAW makes no sense if it includes that what we defined as "Rule 0". It relies on its exclusion to make sense.
If we would include the definition of rule 0 into RAW, I couldn't differentiate between homebrew/houserules and non-hombrew/non-houserules (aka RAW) anymore.

To remind you, "Rule 0" can effectively make all rules irrelevant since the DM has the freedom to change everything. And yeah, we have rules that give the DM this kind of freedom. And if RAW would include this in its definition, everything can be theoretically RAW since a DM could possible rule that way if he wants to.

The community had the need for a term to exclude homebrew and houserules when they defined the term "RAW".

And when we wants to refer to the omnipotence of the DM, we have the term "rule 0" for that.

The term "Rules As Written" ain't meant literary. It only works when you exclude "rule 0" in the first place. That is what what it technically boils down to.

This:

isn't "DM created content". It's rule from Monster Manual.
The first sentence talks about advancement by HD, but we don't care for that part for our lil discussion here.
The second sentence makes a statement what is "often" the case.
When I say "Americans often like basketball", does it somehow become a rule?
Can you tell from that statement which American does like basketball and which one doesn't?
Or can I now force an American that initially didn't like basketball to like it now because of that statement?

The statement is not "All Americans like basketball". (which would be a rule if the statement would be true).

Finally, the "Advancement:" line failed to create a more specific topic. It's still talking about advancement by class and HD. And the Primary Source for those terms can be found under "Improving Monsters".
You have to apply the rules there in the first place.

If you one more time will try to attribute to me something about "rule 0" - I'll add you to ignore list. Forever. Because I don’t see the point of talking to a man who’s talking to voices in his head instead of me.
I am talking about the logic behind the intention why the community created these terms. If we use RAW the way you imply it, it becomes the same as Rule 0 and can't exclude homebrew/houserule anymore.

I have no intention of upsetting you here. Pls don't get me wrong here. But how else I should explain you if your interpretation contradicts the intention the community initially had?

And if you feel offended, you shouldn't personally attack others by implying that they are mentally ill within the very same post. I feel like "a personal attack" is more problematic then "implying that someone actually is referring to something else as he thinks".
So pls stop doing that.

Fighters often select Power Attack feat.
Is selecting Power Attack feat for fighter against rules?
Could fighters often at all select Power Attack feat if it is against rules?
As said, "often" is just a statement what is common. It's not a hard rule. I never implied that.

But "creatures that fall into this category" is an indicator for a hard rule. It's not a watered down statement with "often/sometimes/...". And that tells us that intelligent creatures that can advance by class have the entry "By character class" in their Advancement line.

It does mean that any German could drive german car and directly permit driving german cars for Germans (there are specific exceptions of this general rule).

My point was: The statement didn't give any permissions to drive a car (license). Nor does anyone need a "specific permission" to drive "german cars". It's just a statement of what is common. Not more not less. When something is common, it ain't a hard rule for everybody.

It calls logics. I not only exchange "often" with "always", but also exchange "do" with "can".
"Often" as said indicates what is common and not what is a hard rule. But you interpretation tries to "see rules" in the sentence that is just a "general statement". Can you see why I struggle here with your interpretation?

Yes, Advancement line is more general rule than Improving Monsters. And I has supremacy. Plus, actually, nothing in Improving Monsters contradicts Advancement line.
The "Advancement:" line (topic) provides rules for a specific monster's entry*, while the Improving Monsters topic provides general rules for all monsters.

I. Didn't. Say. That. No. One. ***. Time!

You don't need to exchange the Advancement line to advance Beholder with class levels. It already permitted without changes.
Ah, the Advancement line doesn't carry any mechanical info and is once again just eye candy/fluff text. I get it...

...and suddenly we end up here....
And my Animal Companion didn't exchanged it normal feats. The "feats" line in "Reading the Monster Enteries" did give me permission to change the feats as I want.
Sorry, but I don't but this. The community expects explicit rule options if we refer to RAW (e.g. for contest purposes). Like using explicit "retraining rules" to change an Animal Companions feats.

Same here. If you can't point to an explicit rule (and no "often" still doesn't make rules) that allows you the option, its considered RAW. If you rely on the omnipotence of the DM, we like to exclude that as Rule 0.
Otherwise the term RAW would lose its purpose to exclude homebrew and houserules.

and to "rule 0" if the DM is relying on his omnipotence within the game.

Go and check.

Sorry, but as I see you are not very good at reading. I didn't insist nonsense that you're trying to attribute to me. You are talking to someone else.

The question is, how do we check each others stuff? How does a contest judge know all the content even non-forum users have created? How can we be sure what is RAW? And what about contradicting houserules? Both are RAW now. How do you solve these conflicts that you interpretation creates?

And what is the purpose of the term RAW? Show the omnipotence of the DM? Sorry but we already have a term for that, and that is Rule 0. How do you address that?

PSR starts to work when there are contradicts between different books. But well, let it works within single book, too.
Who did designate primary source between "Improving Monsters" and "Advancement line description"?

You just ask what is a more general/specific topic.

"Improving Monsters" provides rules for all monsters.
"Reading the Monster Entries" provides rules for reading a specific monster's entry.

Since we currently talk about the topic "advancing by class", where do you think the general rules would be located?
a) where the rule talk about "Improving Monsters"
b) where the rules explain how you read each monster's entry.

But in this case, we can even rely on much easier solutions, because the rules straight show us the hierarchy here:

The "Improving Monsters" topic includes both advancing "by HD" and "by class" as subtopic.

This is an undeniable proof that these are subtopics. Thus as soon as advancing by hd/class gets mentioned anywhere else, it has to operate under the rules provided under "Improving Monsters".

And there the most specific rules for our topic is "by class" which may trump any general statements that have been made in the general Improving Monsters rules. Because it's more specific. It doesn't talk about Improving Monsters in general, but the specific case when a monster wants to advance by class.

Well. We couldn't use Monster Manual. Because Organization, Treasure, Environment, Feats, Special Attacks and Special Qualities, Name, Alignment, and Advancement lines of monster descriptions have no rules behind them and are fluff.
Do we really need to argue more about the definition of English words like "often, usually, always, never,...."?
Sorry, but I'm not in the mood to explain the difference here and I think that we both have the same definitions here.
If not, we would be doomed here forever. ;)

While some thing you mentioned are indeed just fluff (e.g. names), most are still bound to general rules found elsewhere. A very common problem with rules printed in books, where you can't use links like on the internet/pc. That's why we have the PSR that tells us that we always should think of any possible general rules might apply. And yeah this can be annoying and complicated at times, but it still works most of the time.
We have rules for treasure, eniroment, feats, special attacks...

In your terms when you say "I often drink black tea", this means "I never drink black tea".
From my point of view it's just a statement that ain't a rule but only explains common behavior.
Do I need to always follow it? No, because I didn't say that I always drink black tee.
Can you tell when or many black tee I will drink?
Can you see a rule pattern in the statement that would allow any predictions or would narrow down any options I have?

No, you can't extrapolate any rules out of a sentence that makes a statement with "often". It's just a statistical observation and not a rule.

What is RAW content version of Ghost (Alignment: any)? Be warned: Lawful Good, Lawful Neutral, Lawful Evil, Neutral Good, Neutral Neutral, Neutral Evil, Chaotic Good, Chaotic Neutral and Chaotic Evil are different versions and that means are homebrew.
I would say any possible alignment as the text implies. Dunno where you see the problem? The rules give you specific option here (due to the template). We are using a specific rule option (and not the omnipotence from rule 0) to make the changes.

You can't be serious. You can't sincerely be THIS guy?
https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/019/899/skinner.jpg
Ah, now we rely on memes that target forum users instead of arguments targeting arguments.

What is you intend here? Offend me?

While it's almost Halloween, this doesn't allow you to start a witch hunt here. ;)

loky1109

2023-10-22, 04:05 AM

No I am talking about the logic behind the community created terms "RAW" and "Rule 0".

The term RAW makes no sense if it includes that what we defined as "Rule 0". It relies on its exclusion to make sense.
If we would include the definition of rule 0 into RAW, I couldn't differentiate between homebrew/houserules and non-hombrew/non-houserules (aka RAW) anymore.

To remind you, "Rule 0" can effectively make all rules irrelevant since the DM has the freedom to change everything. And yeah, we have rules that give the DM this kind of freedom. And if RAW would include this in its definition, everything can be theoretically RAW since a DM could possible rule that way if he wants to.

The community had the need for a term to exclude homebrew and houserules when they defined the term "RAW".

And when we wants to refer to the omnipotence of the DM, we have the term "rule 0" for that.

The term "Rules As Written" ain't meant literary. It only works when you exclude "rule 0" in the first place. That is what what it technically boils down to.
Okay, water is wet, and then what?

And when we wants to refer to the omnipotence of the DM, we have the term "rule 0" for that.
That's why I didn't use "rule 0" term in this discussion.

It only works when you exclude "rule 0" in the first place.
YES. I exclude. And excluded from moment I come in this tread. Only you are talking about "rule 0". Stop it.

When I say "Americans often like basketball", does it somehow become a rule?
Yes. This rule is "Every American can like basketball".

Can you tell from that statement which American does like basketball and which one doesn't?
I can tell from that statement that any and every American could like basketball, some of them use tis potential, some of them don't, but potential is common.

The statement is not "All Americans like basketball".
Statement in MM isn't "All intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die." because, obviously, not all do this. But all can.

Finally, the "Advancement:" line failed to create a more specific topic.
Yes, because it is more general topic to Improving Monsters.

And the Primary Source for those terms can be found under "Improving Monsters".
Who said that? You? Isn't proof.

You have to apply the rules there in the first place.
But even if so. There are no contradictions between Improving Monsters and Advancement line descriptions. Nothing in Improving Monsters prohibits "gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die" for "intelligent creatures."

If we use RAW the way you imply it, it becomes the same as Rule 0 and can't exclude homebrew/houserule anymore.
No.

But how else I should explain you if your interpretation contradicts the intention the community initially had?
It very easy to explain: you are wrong and my interpretation doesn't contradict the intention the community initially had.

And if you feel offended, you shouldn't personally attack others by implying that they are mentally ill within the very same post.
This isn't something I mean, but I see it could look so. Sorry.

Let me explain. "Voices in head" wasn't about mentally illness. "Voices in head" as I know is normal state of mind. At least one has most people - this calls internal narrative. And when you try to understand what another person (me) tells you you inevitably interpret its (my) words. If your interpretation is too different from its (my) intention - it's yours. It made by "its (my) virtual voice in your head". And of course I dislike it.
I don't know how exactly this is happening with you, but I often say my interpretation internally.

But "creatures that fall into this category" is an indicator for a hard rule.
And what does this hard rule say?
"Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line."
What do I see here? First of all I see "most commonly advance" (Doesn't look as hard rule, does it?), secondly I see that "Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line." Does it say us what mechanical impact has "Advancement: By character class"? No. Does it tell us something about creatures that doesn't "fall into this category"? No.

And that tells us that intelligent creatures that can advance by class have the entry "By character class" in their Advancement line.
No. Revers logics here.
Firstly, it only is about creatures "reasonably humanoid in shape." Secondly, it says nothing about limit in any way intelligent creatures that don't have the entry "By character class" in their Advancement line.

It's just a statement of what is common
It's permission by itself.

But you interpretation tries to "see rules" in the sentence that is just a "general statement".
If it's general statement, but not rule we can't use Monster Manual at all, because it'll became not rulebook, "but general statementbook".

The "Advancement:" line (topic) provides rules for a specific monster's entry*, while the Improving Monsters topic provides general rules for all monsters.

Description of "Advancement:" and another lines provides rules for reading all monsters entries. It's clearly most general rules in whole book.

Ah, the Advancement line doesn't carry any mechanical info and is once again just eye candy/fluff text. I get it...
And again you don't read me.

Advancement line does carry some mechanical info.
First: "By character class" creatures can't advance by HD. Second: "by HD" creatures' Advancement lines contain HD/Size limitations ("The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice"). Third: "—" creatures doesn't advance. Fourth: non-intellegent creatures (with "by HD" line) can't advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die.
That's all, but that's mechanical info.

The question is, how do we check each others stuff?
We don't because we don't need, because I don't talk about homebrew (and I wish you stop doing it). Doesn't matter if you still think opposite - you're wrong.

Do we really need to argue more about the definition of English words like "often, usually, always, never,...."?
Sorry, but I'm not in the mood to explain the difference here and I think that we both have the same definitions here.
Yeah, we have same definitions I think. And these words are exists in all lines I listed. Are these lines fluff?

While some thing you mentioned are indeed just fluff (e.g. names)
I really couldn't agree even here.

We have rules for treasure, enviroment, feats, special attacks...
And we have words you called fluff indicators in these lines.

Can you tell when or many black tee I will drink?
Again, I can tell you could drink as many black tee as you want when you want (if there are no impeding circumstances).

The rules give you specific option here (due to the template).
Not only templated creatures have "Alignment: any" line.

Dunno where you see the problem?
I explain. CE Ghost clearly has not the same Alignment line as Ghost from MM - it has "Alignment: any".

Is my CE Ghost homebrew? Is there any non-homebrew ghost?

RandomPeasant

2023-10-22, 09:46 PM

My whole point is that all text requires interpretation. And interpretation is always subjective. Thus, RAW is a meaningless, useless term. And worrying about whether something is "RAW" or not is utterly beyond pointless.

Weird that I interpret this post as Phoenix saying that he supports RAW as the only correct way of understanding the game. If only we could look at what Phoenix had written as something meaningful and useful for understanding what he meant, but sadly the inherently interpretive nature of reading text means that my position is as valid as any other.

Gnaeus

2023-10-23, 08:14 AM

A (RAW) illegal example which ain't even in the rule topic we are concerned with. = zero impact due the Primary Source Rule.

This statement only shows that you don't understand how rules interpretation works. Every official example is a rules interpretation by the game designers. They are showing us how the rules get interpreted. That doesn't mean that the original source has 0 impact. But it does mean that you should give deference to the way they have shown the rule is meant to be interpreted and if there is any kind of rules interpretation that MATCHES the dozens of examples they have give, you are misinterpreting the rule NOT to take those examples as guiding. Especially when, as here, there isn't a split of official opinion, there is text after text showing you how the rule is supposed to work.

Bad rules interpretation: This 1 text says this. Ignore everything else.
Good Rules interpretation: The overwhelming majority of printed text says this. Is there a way in which we can read the primary text to work with the examples?

Tzardok

2023-10-23, 08:21 AM

Weird that I interpret this post as Phoenix saying that he supports RAW as the only correct way of understanding the game. If only we could look at what Phoenix had written as something meaningful and useful for understanding what he meant, but sadly the inherently interpretive nature of reading text means that my position is as valid as any other.

This post in fact supports PhoenixPhyre's thesis. Nowhere in his post did he claim that "all interpretations are valid", nor does this statement derive logically from "all text requires interpretation". This statement only exists in RandomPeasant's interpretation of PhoenixPhyre's words. If not even a proponent of RAW, who should be used to reading a text without interpreting, appears to be able to not interprete another one's words (and arriving at a wrong conclusion that way), isn't that a sign that reading without interpreting is not possible?

Arcanist

2023-10-23, 01:24 PM

Ah, now we rely on memes that target forum users instead of arguments targeting arguments.

What is you intend here? Offend me?

You're dodging the point (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/am-i-so-out-of-touch). I am remarking on how quickly you shifted tone here. You held up forum contest judges as agreeing with you in the context of RAW, only for you to immediately turn on them once they disagreed with you. Here is an example of this actually happening:

I wanna see you submitting such an entry (with the claims you made / not my exaggerated examples) in any of the forum contest and see how the judges will rate it.
I doubt that you'll get a pass for being RAW.

The question of whether or not advancing a monster by class without an 'advance by class' line in the entry would fly in a forum build challenge keeps coming up.

I can't claim to be an expert on such things, but I see such a challenge thread has just ended:

Monster Mash X (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?657225-Monster-Mash-X-Buds-of-a-monster-flock-together)

Looking over the winning entries (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25885810&postcount=59), I see a Grig Crusader (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=25827988&postcount=25) in 1st place.

So the answer is yes.
You can submit monsters with class advancement to forum build challenges even if the monster entry doesn't specifically mention it. Your entry won't be disqualified, you might even win!

Sad to see that the judges either didn't care or weren't aware of the issue (since we all tend to be more trained in PC creation than monster advancement).
But on the other hand, the several monster/villain challenges already operate on a changed ruleset (e.g. allowing monsters with no official LA or being CR based in the first place).
So, imho it's easier for the judges to get mislead here. (no offense against the judges here btw).

As said, since RAW and homebrew are community terms and the 3.5 books clearly allows to create homebrew content according to RAW, it is easy to get mislead here.

You didn't adjust your position, you didn't question whether or not you were wrong, you immediately pivoted to the position that, that the example you held up as agreeing with you as being wrong. You couldn't entertain the idea that you were wrong for even a second, which is funny to me.

EDIT: I should also clarify that no, I am not here to argue the points with someone who is so far unwilling or unable to even agree upon terms. The fact that this discussion even entered the realms of "what RAW even is" is all the proof I need that there was never any possible way I or anyone else could change your mind. Simply put, I'm not interested in trying to argue boulders up a hill. Make of that what you will.

AvatarVecna

2023-10-23, 03:28 PM

This thread has been quite helpful for curating my block list. I implore others to make similar use of it.

RandomPeasant

2023-10-23, 07:34 PM

Nowhere in his post did he claim that "all interpretations are valid", nor does this statement derive logically from "all text requires interpretation".

I agree that, in principle, you could accept interpretation as necessary without accepting all interpretations as valid. But by calling RAW "meaningless and useless", Phoenix staked out a maximalist position. It's fair to respond in kind, as it's hard to see how we'd tell which interpretations of a text are more or less valid when we've rejected "what does the text say as written" as not worthy of consideration.

Gruftzwerg

2023-10-24, 06:37 AM

This thread has been quite helpful for curating my block list. I implore others to make similar use of it.
So the cancel-culture has arrived on the forum too now?

We stop discussing with people who have other opinions and arguments and just block em?

Normally a forum's intend is is to discuss DIFFERENT opinions and arguments and the block function is intended for offending people.
And I have to ask how I have offended you personally?
And I rather find it very offending that you are encouraging others to block me (the sole person you argued with here. you don't need to name me to make your intentions obvious here) too just because you disagree with me and my arguments.

(but sadly you narrowed your own experience by blocking others for no other reason as disagreeing with you and won't be even able to read this...)

Okay, water is wet, and then what?

That's why I didn't use "rule 0" term in this discussion.
That doesn't change that by logic your interpretation still fits rule 0 and that RAW's intention and definition is to explicitly exclude stuff based on rule 0.

Your arguments regarding the "Advancement:" and "Feat" line that a DM may freely change em is a friendly reminder of rule 0.

Remind you that the main TOPIC here is "Reading the Monster Entries" and not "Altering/Changing/Improving the Monster Entries".

We have the topics:

1. Reading the Monster Entries

2. Improving Monster

3. rule 0 / homebrew
(and to give a fitting rule quote)

FINAL NOTE
The power of creating worlds, controlling deities and dragons, and
leading entire nations is in your hands. You are the master of the
game—the rules, the setting, the action, and ultimately, the fun.
This is a great deal of power, and you must use it wisely. This book
shows you how.
This gives the DM the supremacy over the rules and the content to alter anything as he sees fit.

Nowhere does "Reading the Monster Entries" give you permission to change the stats. It only tells you how you should read it. And if the text here talks about possible changes, it is referring to rule 0 and ain't talking about reading the rules anymore.

YES. I exclude. And excluded from moment I come in this tread. Only you are talking about "rule 0". Stop it.

How if it the definition about RAW relies on it? If I include the options you imply into RAW, then there is no difference between RAW and rule 0 anymore. You can't just exclude arguments because you don't like em.

Yes. This rule is "Every American can like basketball".

I can tell from that statement that any and every American could like basketball, some of them use tis potential, some of them don't, but potential is common.
Sorry but the statement "Americans often like basketball" doesn't give Americans permission to like basketball, nor do Americans need a permission to like basketball.
You are seeing rules where there are none.

Statement in MM isn't "All intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die." because, obviously, not all do this. But all can.
The main topic is still "Reading the Monster Entries" and not altering em. Any mentioned possible changes here refer to rule 0 and ain't talking about "Reading the Monster Entries" anymore.

If you want to make changes to the base feats and advancement option a monster has, you have to rely on rule 0 and create your own homebrew content.

Yes, because it is more general topic to Improving Monsters.
So you are agreeing that Improving Monsters is more specific and thus has supremacy over its own topic "Improving Monsters".

Point for me.

Remind you it's Specific Trumps General and not General Trumps Everything...

Who said that? You? Isn't proof.
I don't need to say it. Advancement by HD and by class are subtopics under Improving Monsters. It has been quoted often enough in this thread, but in case you missed it:

Improving Monsters

...

Class Levels

...

Increased Hit Dice

...

Templates

...

Each of these three methods for improving monsters is discussed in more detail below.

But even if so. There are no contradictions between Improving Monsters and Advancement line descriptions. Nothing in Improving Monsters prohibits "gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die" for "intelligent creatures."
"Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line. "
Is explicit what is needed to qualify for this category. If you chose to ignore it, you rely on rule 0.

No.
And how do you define and identify homebrew if anything and everything the DM does in-game is RAW (see Final Note in DMG)?

The community has the need to differentiate between homebrew or not for communitcation purposes. How do you address that?

I wanna see a definition that works for each of terms. Show me how you would define em so each one makes sense and we can distinguish em.

It very easy to explain: you are wrong and my interpretation doesn't contradict the intention the community initially had.
Ah, because you know that I am wrong, I may not try to provide arguments for my point of view?
Is this the new cancelculture here? Anyone who doesn't agree with me may not talk or what?

How can you decide what is right and wrong and who may speak here in the forum or not?

This isn't something I mean, but I see it could look so. Sorry.
Accepted. While I didn't think that you really meant it, and I know that its due to the heated up discussion I have a hard time witht hat topic. The topic "mental illness" is very personal topic for me (I had a relationship with someone for 10y with mental problems) I have a harder time to deal with jokes about it than normally (you know I like to poke fun and don't have problems if others do the same)

Contrary if you should ever feel offended by me let me know (like with the rule 0 thing), and I will try to deal with it as sensible as possible (I hope that I manged that here...?)

And what does this hard rule say?
"Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape most commonly advance by adding class levels. Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line."
What do I see here? First of all I see "most commonly advance" (Doesn't look as hard rule, does it?), secondly I see that "Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line." Does it say us what mechanical impact has "Advancement: By character class"? No. Does it tell us something about creatures that doesn't "fall into this category"? No.
Remind you that we are defining something here. Thus despite any fluff text at the beginning (most commonly advance = no hard rule as you say; I agree), there has to me some mechanical info there or otherwise it would be dysfunctional definition without any purpose (and I heavy disagree with such an outcome).
As said, "Creatures that fall into this category " indicates that it is calling out a trait that all creatures that fall into this category have in common. It's a polarized statement that ain't watered down anymore like the first sentence. It's a hard rule.

The rule in 3.5 often start with general (fluff) statements (= no hard rule) and shift into hard rule mechanics. Same here.

No. Revers logics here.
Firstly, it only is about creatures "reasonably humanoid in shape." Secondly, it says nothing about limit in any way intelligent creatures that don't have the entry "By character class" in their Advancement line.

The first two sentences are not referring to each other. One is a fluff statement, the other the hard rule.

It's permission by itself.
Remind you of the "Germans often drive german cars" example.
Just because this often the case, doesn't give any permissions here.
To drive, you still need a driving license.
And you don't need any special permission to drive a german car.

No permission is given by the use of "often". Either you have the permission from elsewhere or you don't have it (or don't need it, depending on the case/example).

Sorry, but still no permission here.

If it's general statement, but not rule we can't use Monster Manual at all, because it'll became not rulebook, "but general statementbook".
May the rule books not make non-rule relevant statements anymore? Is there any rule that says that?

You can use the word "often" in combination with a pattern to describe something that almost feels like a rule but ain't one. Because the pattern ain't strict, you can't make a (hard) rule out of it. It remains just observation.

And while this is sometimes referred to as "soft-rule" it still ain't a (hard) rule.

This is just a default trait of language and nothing 3.5 specific.

Description of "Advancement:" and another lines provides rules for reading all monsters entries. It's clearly most general rules in whole book.
Most general rules for READING em, not advancing or changing em.

"Advancement" (the process) on the other hand improves a monster and thus is a subtopic of "Improving Monsters".

And to create different versions with different feats/advancement we rely on other rules (IIRC rule 0 from "Final Words". As least I couldn't find a main topic for creating Monsters. MM II has some more detailed rules that help here, but it doesn't have a topic name but is just how the book starts before it gets to the actual monster entries..)

And again you don't read me.

Advancement line does carry some mechanical info.
First: "By character class" creatures can't advance by HD. Second: "by HD" creatures' Advancement lines contain HD/Size limitations ("The advancement line shows how tough a creature can get, in terms of extra Hit Dice"). Third: "—" creatures doesn't advance. Fourth: non-intellegent creatures (with "by HD" line) can't advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die.
That's all, but that's mechanical info.

I do read what you say and I even think that I get what you intend to say. But that doesn't change the problems I mentioned above.

The intention here is to provide rule to aid you READING the entry, not changing the entry. The entire section is about reading.

To alter an entry you need to rely on OTHER rules, where the main intention is to make changes, like "Improving Monster" or "Final Note". Remind you that I'm poking on the TOPIC hierarchy set by the Primary Source Rule here. The topic here is READING.

(PS: I hope that the frequent use of CAPS ain't offending. I just want to point out the main part of the argument)

We don't because we don't need, because I don't talk about homebrew (and I wish you stop doing it). Doesn't matter if you still think opposite - you're wrong.
This entire debate is based on my initial statement in a RAW TO build that tried to exclude homebrew (for showcase purposes). How can you expect me to not talk about it.

Do you expect that I defend a statement of mine that was taken out of context or what?
Is this a cheap TV talkshow or what?^^

People did take a statement of a RAW TO showcase out of the context that it referred to RAW content for forum showcase purposes and make a witch hunt against Gruftzwerg pretending that I ague about RAW rules and against rule 0...
Even so far that someone put me onto his blocklist and suggests other to do the same...

Can you feel why I am poking on the context here???

Yeah, we have same definitions I think. And these words are exists in all lines I listed. Are these lines fluff?
Only the statement those words are explicitly referring to. Most of the time a single sentence or sometimes even only half a sentence. Just because I say once sentence with a "non-hard-rule term" doesn't mean that everything thereafter belongs to it.

"Creatures that belong into this category ..." creates a strict rule.

If I say a sentence with "most" and later make sentence with "all", does the statement with "all" not create a hard rule anymore? It still does. And here the rule stat to talk about what creatures that belong into this category have in common ("by class" entry in the Advancement line).

I really couldn't agree even here.
The suggested names for races are non-exclusive options. You can use em or not. No rule forces you to do so. They are statements talking about possibilities. No hard rules here.

And we have words you called fluff indicators in these lines.
Yeah and they do what they are supposed to do. Not more, not less.

Again, I can tell you could drink as many black tee as you want when you want (if there are no impeding circumstances).
As said, the original statement neither did give me permission to drink black tee, nor does it help me to consume as much black tea as I want. When I say "I often drink black tea", it's simply telling you a non strict pattern. No rule that determines my behavior or drinking black tea.
Things would be different if I would say "I always drink black tea in the morning" (time rule) or "I am addicted to black tea" (definition of an addiction=rule), where you could see a strict pattern.

I explain. CE Ghost clearly has not the same Alignment line as Ghost from MM - it has "Alignment: any".

Is my CE Ghost homebrew? Is there any non-homebrew ghost?
The value "any" allows for any possible combination for your alignment to be legal. Do I need to explain what mechanical impact the words "any" has according to the English language?

This statement only shows that you don't understand how rules interpretation works. Every official example is a rules interpretation by the game designers. They are showing us how the rules get interpreted. That doesn't mean that the original source has 0 impact. But it does mean that you should give deference to the way they have shown the rule is meant to be interpreted and if there is any kind of rules interpretation that MATCHES the dozens of examples they have give, you are misinterpreting the rule NOT to take those examples as guiding. Especially when, as here, there isn't a split of official opinion, there is text after text showing you how the rule is supposed to work.

Bad rules interpretation: This 1 text says this. Ignore everything else.
Good Rules interpretation: The overwhelming majority of printed text says this. Is there a way in which we can read the primary text to work with the examples?
I have provided the rule hierarchy created by the Primary Source Rule, and even explained the difference of common English words that can either water-down a statement (= no rule) or that indicate a strict statement.

Sorry, but I have to argue that I am not ignoring anything here, but am applying the full extent of RAW.

Further I believe that my interpretation is totally in line with RAI. Because the authors differentiate between local houserules/homebrew and officially printed content. Just because "DMG's Final Note" give the DM the power of "rule 0" doesn't stop the authors from doing this differentiation. It sole allows the DM to make these things for his local game (which is fine and good. don't get me wrong here. This discussion is about forum contests and showcases and communication). They don't become official content. But an "Improved Monster" is still official. It's a full printed legal option to add onto your monster. Basically similar to just buying equipment (a legal OPTION) with your PC. Maybe a bit more complicated than just buying equipment, but both just legally alter you stackblock from a simple point of view.

You're dodging the point (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/am-i-so-out-of-touch). I am remarking on how quickly you shifted tone here. You held up forum contest judges as agreeing with you in the context of RAW, only for you to immediately turn on them once they disagreed with you. Here is an example of this actually happening:
My point was what is generally seen as allowed in a contest. If the judges let it slit, it's their personal choice or fail.

Yeah some judges seem to have not addressed this issue or aren't aware of it? So what? Do you expect me to blame em for that?

Or should I now take opportunity and make entries with Animal Companions and exchange their base feats and claim that it is 100% RAW and not to be penalized, just because a DM may exchange the base feats by RAW/rule 0?

You didn't adjust your position, you didn't question whether or not you were wrong, you immediately pivoted to the position that, that the example you held up as agreeing with you as being wrong. You couldn't entertain the idea that you were wrong for even a second, which is funny to me.
You talk like as if those judgments would be any logical or official proof. They are just incidences. But (forum) judges can make mistakes as all humans can.

If I join a contest as judge, does my point of view suddenly become more valid and has more weight in this discussion?? (maybe I should give this a try...)

What is your argument here? Should I ignore my non-official point of view in favor of another non-offical point of view for no reason? All you showed me was that the judges didn't address the issue.

EDIT: I should also clarify that no, I am not here to argue the points with someone who is so far unwilling or unable to even agree upon terms. The fact that this discussion even entered the realms of "what RAW even is" is all the proof I need that there was never any possible way I or anyone else could change your mind. Simply put, I'm not interested in trying to argue boulders up a hill. Make of that what you will.
Since no one can point to any official or even an explicit forum definition of the term "RAW", it is to be expected that this kind of discussion can occur every now and then. But these discussions help us to nail down the definition into a simple to understand format. If we never discuss this, the same discussions will keep reoccurring.
To give an example of this: How do you think the term "Specific Trumps General" was born? Otta thin air? I was created after countless discussions in the official forums about the Primary Source Rule and the unrestricted topic supremacy it grants.
It was earned by discussion!

______________________________________

I hope that we can all calm down a bit and try to further debate this without heating up the discussion unnecessary.

NontheistCleric

2023-10-24, 08:05 AM

Ah, because you know that I am wrong, I may not try to provide arguments for my point of view?
Is this the new cancelculture here? Anyone who doesn't agree with me may not talk or what?

How can you decide what is right and wrong and who may speak here in the forum or not?

I think a more charitable way to say it might be:

You've been providing arguments that not one single other person here has accepted for five pages. Honestly, without making any further comment on who is right or wrong... don't you think it might be time to give it a rest?

loky1109

2023-10-24, 08:59 AM

Your arguments regarding the "Advancement:" and "Feat" line that a DM may freely change em is a friendly reminder of rule 0.
I just don't know... Don't how you're reading my arguments. How many times should I repeat that we needn't DM to change Advancement and Feats lines? All permissions already are in. Without changes. And yes, changing Advancement line IS homebrew creation. Of course it is!

Remind you that the main TOPIC here is "Reading the Monster Entries" and not "Altering/Changing/Improving the Monster Entries".
Please, remind it for yourself. You are only person who is talking about Altering Monsters and rule 0/homebrew for some reason.

This gives the DM the supremacy over the rules and the content to alter anything as he sees fit.
Water is wet, #2.

Why did you quote this?

Nowhere does "Reading the Monster Entries" give you permission to change the stats. It only tells you how you should read it.
I don't know how did you read this chapter. Did you completely miss "Advancement" line? It's line exactly about "change the stats." Or we now come to the point where even adding HD to Beholder is homebrew?

And if the text here talks about possible changes, it is referring to rule 0 and ain't talking about reading the rules anymore.
It is dysfunctional reading.
I'm staying on position that NOTHING in rulebook refers to rule 0 until it is said directly. Because if it isn't we are forced to guess.

You can't just exclude arguments because you don't like em.
Why? You do that.

The main topic is still "Reading the Monster Entries" and not altering em. Any mentioned possible changes here refer to rule 0 and ain't talking about "Reading the Monster Entries" anymore.
I see, 14HD Beholder is homebrew. Ok.

Remind you it's Specific Trumps General and not General Trumps Everything...
1) Specific Trumps General is wrong, because it's directly opposite to your holy cow - PSR.
2) We don't need trump anything, because there are no contradictions between "Reading the Entries" and "Improving Monsters" chapters.

So

So you are agreeing that Improving Monsters is more specific...
Yes.

...and thus has supremacy over its own topic "Improving Monsters".
No. It's against PSR.

Advancement by HD and by class are subtopics under Improving Monsters.
And there are nothing about what does this mean in the "Improving Monsters", so we go to more general "Reading the Entries" and see the rules.

"Creatures that fall into this category have an entry of "By character class" in their Advancement line. "
Is explicit what is needed to qualify for this category. If you chose to ignore it, you rely on rule 0.
To fall into category "Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape"? Yes. Nobody argue that beholder is "reasonably humanoid in shape" so we don't need to proof it.
But you for unknown reason argue that only "Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape" can advance via class levels. Which has no proofs.

Do you see? You use reverse logics. "“By character class” in their Advancement line" is indicator of "Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape" - nothing more. And "Intelligent creatures that are reasonably humanoid in shape" "most commonly advance by adding class levels." Which, by the way, in your terms isn't rule at all, because there are wording "most commonly."

Intelligent creatures that are not humanoid in shape, and nonintelligent monsters, can advance by increasing their Hit Dice.
This is permission to advance by increasing Hit Dice. Nothing more. And if there wasn't "Reading the Entries" part - you'd win. But there is! And it is rule. And this rule says "Often, intelligent creatures advance by gaining a level in a character class instead of just gaining a new Hit Die." This is permission.

And how do you define and identify homebrew if anything and everything the DM does in-game is RAW (see Final Note in DMG)?
It isn't and I newer claimed this. I still don't know who you're talking and listening to, but definitely not to me.

Ah, because you know that I am wrong
I know that you are wrong about what I claim and what I don't. Clearly I'm better to know that.

I may not try to provide arguments for my point of view?
Arguments for your point of view on my point of view? Please don't. I know my point of view by myself, you don't need to proof that it is different. White is white, white isn't black.

Is this the new cancelculture here? Anyone who doesn't agree with me may not talk or what?
I think yes: you try to cancel my point of view. "Actually, you don't know what are you mean, I'll explain it to you" - this is your words. This doesn't work.

Contrary if you should ever feel offended by me let me know (like with the rule 0 thing), and I will try to deal with it as sensible as possible (I hope that I manged that here...?)
Actually you don't managed well, but I'm just better and it could not matter for me for now.

The rule in 3.5 often start with general (fluff) statements (= no hard rule) and shift into hard rule mechanics. Same here.
Where did exactly it shift in this case? In the middle of sentence? "It's interesting" (C).

The first two sentences are not referring to each other. One is a fluff statement, the other the hard rule.
Do you have a proof? Hard.

To drive, you still need a driving license.
Actually no. It's illegal, but you can.

May the rule books not make non-rule relevant statements anymore? Is there any rule that says that?
May of course. But not in the its basement.

You can use the word "often" in combination with a pattern to describe something that almost feels like a rule but ain't one. Because the pattern ain't strict, you can't make a (hard) rule out of it. It remains just observation.
That's why we can't use monster manual, we have no rules how to read it.

The intention here is to provide rule to aid you READING the entry, not changing the entry.
Changing is process subordinate to reading. So "Reading the Entry" section could contain information about changing, too.

Only the statement those words are explicitly referring to. Most of the time a single sentence or sometimes even only half a sentence. Just because I say once sentence with a "non-hard-rule term" doesn't mean that everything thereafter belongs to it.
And who does draw the line? You? Sorry, you aren't authority enough for me.

The suggested names for races are non-exclusive options.
Names has necessary service functions. Without name you can't point what entry you're talking about. Name clearly isn't fluff while it looks like.

When I say "I often drink black tea", it's simply telling you a non strict pattern.
It means at least "You 100% are physically able to drink black tea." and it is very strict.

The value "any" allows for any possible combination for your alignment to be legal.
Yes, but my CE Ghost has no "any" in its Alignment line. It is changed to RAW legal, but different value.

Is my CE Ghost homebrew? Is there any non-homebrew ghost?

Further I believe that my interpretation is totally in line with RAI.
You're crossing dangerous line now! While I could see how to read RAW in your way (I just don't agree it is single or best way), by RAI your interpretation is totally wrong. While we're talking about RAW you could ignore my points as "it isn't rules, it's fluff" but when we star talking about RAI you lose that possibility. Fluff became as important as hard rules or even MORE important.
d43 damage as example. Intent is clear, it differs from RAW. it is superior than RAW.
Stop here. Not go on that side, you'll not like it.