PDA

View Full Version : Who uses RAW



ALOR
2007-12-14, 04:23 PM
Ok I think most people use RAI with some house rules thrown in.
But with all the threads around asking about the skill system's glitchs in RAW and some of the Classes Probelms in RAW, I was curious if anyone out there just uses pure unaltered Rules As Written.

Indon
2007-12-14, 04:26 PM
I've been in lightly-houseruled campaigns before, which is kind of close.

Xefas
2007-12-14, 04:29 PM
Technically, you can't, considering the rules aren't all encompassing. You have to assume certain things, such as your characters having been born, being alive, having to breathe, etc.

It sounds stupid, but that's because it was intended out of common sense.

The rules as written can be funny, though, in which case they may trump the rules as intended in my game, simply for that one situation in which it's a joke.

Theli
2007-12-14, 04:30 PM
Well, RAW is only theoretically possible. Questions are asked regarding RAW, because RAW are guidelines.

No real game is run without at least SOME RAI and/or houserules.

martyboy74
2007-12-14, 04:44 PM
Technically, you can't, considering the rules aren't all encompassing. You have to assume certain things, such as your characters having been born, being alive, having to breathe, etc.

What if you're a rock that was permanently PAOed in an undead?

Miles Invictus
2007-12-14, 04:57 PM
Rocks don't have an LA; you can't play them unless your DM houserules something. :smalltongue:

Dausuul
2007-12-14, 05:01 PM
I wouldn't ever play strict RAW except as a joke game... given that under strict RAW, dead people don't have to stop moving.

C Harnryd
2007-12-15, 01:34 AM
Well, RAW is only theoretically possible. Questions are asked regarding RAW, because RAW are guidelines.

No real game is run without at least SOME RAI and/or houserules.

Probably true, but not everyone houserule the same aspects of the rules. Someone using a particular section of the RAW in play can be interested in the exact implications of a discussion, not just for guideline purposes.

(I'm now ignoring the fact that all rules and all game systems are optional guidelines. :smallamused: )

Titanium Dragon
2007-12-15, 02:06 AM
I use the RAW rules, by and large, mostly for universality, but I used to have about 100 pages of rules modifications which I never used because, frankly, no one was willing to read through them all. It had fixes for all the classes, all the spells I'd seen to be problematic, ect. But no one wants to deal with all that, so mostly I just play RAW and slap people if they attempt something broken.

That said, I DO have homebrewed races (which people never play as), PrCs (ditto), gods (this is actually relevant), and monsters (gotta love tangle trees).

Theli
2007-12-15, 02:38 AM
Probably true, but not everyone houserule the same aspects of the rules. Someone using a particular section of the RAW in play can be interested in the exact implications of a discussion, not just for guideline purposes.

(I'm now ignoring the fact that all rules and all game systems are optional guidelines. :smallamused: )

*nods* Absolutely. Even on the most basic game matters, people have differing opinions.

I mostly say that RAW are guidelines because they aren't a complete system. However, a complete system, at least mathematically, is impossible because any such system must be capable of self-referentiality. And any system with self-referentiality is by their very nature incomplete. Gotta love Godel. :p



Even by trying to play solely according to RAW, you are houseruling. It may not be obvious, but you probably just houseruled the "default undefined" clause. That anything not explicitly defined by RAW, is open to interpretation in the name of convenience and/or common sense. The unclear definition of death is commonly brought up to illustrate this. It can't be avoided. Although I wonder if the case can be made that this "default undefined" clause is actually part of RAW. Unfortunately, it seems that most people tend to explicitly exclude rule zero from any discussion of RAW. *shrugs*

Curmudgeon
2007-12-15, 02:56 AM
I've only seen a game where the RAW were strictly followed once. This included having single ranged attacks provoke AoOs, but ranged full attacks never provoking. If you look in the Combat chapter you'll see they say that full attacks (without specifying whether they're melee or ranged) never provoke. So in this strict RAW game archers would 5' step to get right in the faces of their enemies and let fly with arrows, then Quick Draw a sword at the end of their turn.

Chronicled
2007-12-15, 02:58 AM
...and monsters (gotta love tangle trees).

You wouldn't happen to have these statted up online, would you? The name piques my interest, and they sound like the perfect thing to throw at a party I'm DMing for, particularly since they know the weaknesses of most every printed monster (and they've jacked up their knowledge skills so that it's not pure metagaming).

horseboy
2007-12-15, 02:59 AM
Does LG count as RAW? Since, technically, they're WotC's house rules.

Theli
2007-12-15, 03:19 AM
Does LG count as RAW? Since, technically, they're WotC's house rules.


That's a good question. It would be nice to have it qualify. Unfortunately, there's a lot of rules in LG that only make sense for LG. They would just be ridiculous to follow for a home campaign. (Time Units for instance...)

Emperor Demonking
2007-12-15, 05:43 AM
I'm actually running a close to RAW game but you can only do so if its a joke game.

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-12-15, 05:57 AM
Technically, you can't, considering the rules aren't all encompassing. You have to assume certain things, such as your characters having been born, being alive, having to breathe, etc.


Of course you have to make certain assumption, but it is not quite as bad as some thing.

There is plenty of references to creatures being alive and who cares if they were born or created from the leaf of a tree, the former makes most sense, but it is not a requirement for playing as we already know that the creature exists.

We also do not have to assume that the players breathe, because the rules stipulate that they do. (Assuming PHB races)


Humanoids breathe, eat, and sleep.



I've only seen a game where the RAW were strictly followed once. This included having single ranged attacks provoke AoOs, but ranged full attacks never provoking. If you look in the Combat chapter you'll see they say that full attacks (without specifying whether they're melee or ranged) never provoke. So in this strict RAW game archers would 5' step to get right in the faces of their enemies and let fly with arrows, then Quick Draw a sword at the end of their turn.

A full attack does not become a full attack until you decide to make your second attack. Until that point you can still decide to take a move action instead of continuing your attacks.

Satyr
2007-12-15, 06:26 AM
I wouldn't play D&D without several, quite broad changes and houserules. RAW is therefore not very attractive for me. Without houserules, rpg's are as bland as food without salt.

KIDS
2007-12-15, 07:00 AM
I really couldn't say - I've ran several adventures in which, naturally, some situations occured that weren't directly adressed by the rules so I improvised checks. But usually I do try to run it by RAW simply because I don't think I'm so capable to produce a significantly better rule on my own by houseruling.

Some houserules of mine:
- using Rich Burlew's Diplomacy variant from this site (thank you!!! awesome job requiring minimal DM fiat! *kiss*)
- Not using Instant Kill (the triple d20)
- Using critical success or failure on skill checks (if you roll a 1 or 20, roll again vs. same DC to see if you critically fail or succeed. These are pretty tame, like climbing at double speed for one round or such, and only for diversity)
- Spot checks variant (adjusted distance penalties for size, found on this board! Also thanks, only I don't know to whom anymore!)
- XP distribution: standard encounter XP + RP XP + Quest XP. If you get XP from only one source several times there will be diminishing returns.

I also encourage but not force druids to use Shapeshift variant or Fighters to grab a level or two of a martial adept class. But otherwise, I think my game fairly rule light and fairly houserule light. As long as my players like it, I'm happy too.

p.s. no, people don't revive at 0 hp when they drown in my game. Obvious nonsense is not a rule or a houserule.

Curmudgeon
2007-12-15, 08:27 PM
A full attack does not become a full attack until you decide to make your second attack. Until that point you can still decide to take a move action instead of continuing your attacks. That's not the whole story. An attack is treated as a full attack as soon as the player declares it as such. This is required if what they're doing will impose penalties, such as attacking with two weapons; it's a full attack before the first swing. If the PC isn't attacking with two weapons, the player has the option to decide after the first swing whether they're making a full attack. But there's no provision in the rules for retroactively unimposing a two-weapon fighting penalty.

Also, if the PC has taken a 5' step before their first swing, the following is nonsense:

Deciding between an Attack or a Full Attack

After your first attack, you can decide to take a move action instead of making your remaining attacks, depending on how the first attack turns out.

Moff Chumley
2007-12-15, 09:32 PM
I will bet you that anybody who complains or hypothesizes about cheese or major imbalance has never, in fact, experienced it in-game after it was brought to the DM's attention. As such, I doubt really anybody uses RAW.

Reinboom
2007-12-15, 09:47 PM
I will bet you that anybody who complains or hypothesizes about cheese or major imbalance has never, in fact, experienced it in-game after it was brought to the DM's attention. As such, I doubt really anybody uses RAW.

Not always. I've had a DM say anything goes, and encouraged optimization.
I played a planar shepherd (dream) to punish him.
Like, actually played. It took him a couple sessions to disallow.

Aquillion
2007-12-15, 09:49 PM
Some of the rules can't be used as written. A good example is Metaconcert (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/powers/metaconcert.htm).

You cannot use Metaconcert as it is written. It simply leaves out essential information. What's the manifester level of the mental entity? What is its key attribute score? It says it gets bonuses to saving throws, so how does it make saving throws? How does someone go about targetting it? If it is targetted, what happens when anything other than ability damage is applied to it? What if it manifests an ability like Mind Switch, or something like Personal Dimension door that assumes it has a body?

Can the participants take their own actions while the Metaconcert is active? (It implies in one part that participants can at least move individually by saying they can move within the 20-foot radius.) Can they continue to manifest powers on their own with the power points they didn't send into the pool? Can the conductor continue to act on their own in addition to directing the entity? Does the entity have access to psionic feats and other abilities and items that modify powers? If so, from where--everyone, or just the conductor?

(One fun thing about this power: Unconscious creatures are automatically considered willing. So, by rendering a psionic creature unconsious, you can theoretically burn its power points and make it pay half of the XP cost for powers you manifest... by doing it to ten, you could reduce your XP cost to 1/10th what it is normally. Hmm, are there any tiny psionic creatures you could render unconsious and carry around with you?)

olelia
2007-12-16, 12:06 AM
Personally...I follow the RAW to the hilt other then where certain things just aren't explained...like how if a dragon grapples you it couldn't eat someone else or hit the with its tail...

Lord Lorac Silvanos
2007-12-16, 03:40 AM
That's not the whole story. An attack is treated as a full attack as soon as the player declares it as such. This is required if what they're doing will impose penalties, such as attacking with two weapons; it's a full attack before the first swing. If the PC isn't attacking with two weapons, the player has the option to decide after the first swing whether they're making a full attack. But there's no provision in the rules for retroactively unimposing a two-weapon fighting penalty.

The penalties have to be observed, but there is nothing in the rules that prevent you from taking the penalty and still only make one attack with one weapon and then proceed to turn what were supposed to be an full attack into a standard + move action routine.

In this case we were not even talking about using two weapons....


Also, if the PC has taken a 5' step before their first swing, the following is nonsense:


Nonsense? How so?
It is certainly possible to use a move action for things other than moving.


There are many issues concerning the RAW were you have house rule some aspect, but in some of the examples provided here it is not necessary.