What do you Consider RAW?

[Tormsskull]

Partially coming from reading the Lich thread floating around at the moment, and partially out of my own curiosity, I'm wondering what the average person considers the Rules As Written.

Do you think Rules As Written mean:

1.) The Core Rules (PHB, DMG, MM).

2.) Any book published by WotC for 3.5.

3.) Anything at all published by WotC for 3.5 (web enhancements, The Sage's Advice, etc).


To me, RAW means the rules that you have to have in order to play the game. They are rules that are clearly spelled out, are very specific and clear in their language and make it easy for anyone reading them to draw the same meaning from them the vast majority of the time.

If someone asks "Do barbarians get d12 hit dice?" We can look in the PHB, and it is clearly spelled out that the barbarian does in fact get d12 hitdice. That is the Rule As Written.

If the language is not clear, and open to interpretation, then how each individual DM understands it becomes Rules As Interpretted (RAI).

I also think that it should not be required that every person buy every supplement that WotC publishes in order to be "playing the game correctly (or by the RAW)." As such, I have always considered that supplements are just that, supplemental, optional, and not required.

So I'd choose #1 from the above list.

[Tellah]

It's the "Rules as Written"--no matter the source. What you're talking about is "Core." If someone asks how many craft reserve points an Artificer gets at level six, one can still point to a particular page out of the Eberron Campaign Setting for the RAW answer. If the RAW only encompasses the Core rulebooks, how do you refer to the many, many rules laid out in subsequent supplements? "Rules as Expanded?"

[Khantalas]

Anything spelled out by WotC (or, well, in my case, Green Ronin). To be more precise, if it's a rule, and it's written, playing according to it is playing by the RAW.

No, I don't have free will or imagination.

[Ramza00]

The Rules as Written is all the written rules in Core, the Supplements, and the Errata.

The FAQ, Sage, and to a lesser extent customer service (the lesser extent is due to the work and so many people answering so many questions and sometimes they give quick answers without looking up the rules there are contradictory answers) isn't neccessary RAW, they can say what RAW is if there are two possible interpertations and throw their weight behind one interpertation, they can also say what the rules should be, or what the intended rules are. That said the FAQ is not the same as Errata. Even though the Sage and the FAQ aren't RAW they are still very valuable guides, and their recommendations should almost always be implemented in the game.

[Curmudgeon]

1.) The Core Rules (PHB, DMG, MM).

There's no reason to stop here. RAW stands for "Rules As Written", and WotC didn't stop making rules at this point.

2.) Any book published by WotC for 3.5.

Check page 4 of your DMG, which says that almost all 3.0 material is a valid part of the game, too.

3.) Anything at all published by WotC for 3.5 (web enhancements, The Sage's Advice, etc).

If the web enhancements include new rules, such as expanded skill uses, then they're RAW. But Sage Advice and the FAQ are (respected) opinion, rather than actual rules. You also must include all the 3.0 and 3.5 errata in RAW.

Here's the right answer:

4) All WotC published 3.5 material, all WotC 3.0 material except where superseded by or in conflict with 3.5 sources, all 3.0 and 3.5 errata, and all web enhancements that include rules.

[Fax Celestis]

4) All WotC published 3.5 material, all WotC 3.0 material except where superseded by or in conflict with 3.5 sources, all 3.0 and 3.5 errata, and all web enhancements that include rules.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

[Caelestion]

If I might just clarify point 4, I'd accept that as RAW, except where official books of dubious quality bring up ridiculous concepts which defy all logic and blatantly contradict previous sources.

[Fax Celestis]

If I might just clarify point 4, I'd accept that as RAW, except where official books of dubious quality bring up ridiculous concepts which defy all logic and blatantly contradict previous sources.

Well, that's called "being an intelligent dm/player."

[Citizen Joe]

If I might just clarify point 4, I'd accept that as RAW, except where official books of dubious quality bring up ridiculous concepts which defy all logic and blatantly contradict previous sources.

Like the Player's Handbook and DMG

[lord_khaine]

yep, its 4, though i personaly would prefer to cut the 3.0 part out.

[Jack Mann]

If I might just clarify point 4, I'd accept that as RAW, except where official books of dubious quality bring up ridiculous concepts which defy all logic and blatantly contradict previous sources.

It's still RAW. It's just RAW that you shouldn't follow. I've covered this.

RAW doesn't mean that you follow it or even that it should be followed. Merely that it's part of the rules. No more, no less. Which rules you go by are up to you and your group.

[Curmudgeon]

If I might just clarify point 4, I'd accept that as RAW, except where official books of dubious quality bring up ridiculous concepts which defy all logic and blatantly contradict previous sources.

No, the definition of RAW is correct. You're talking about RAP (Rules As Playable), a much slipperier entity to wrap your brain around.

[Caelestion]

As chuffed as I am by my apparently rapidly increasing popularity, with each and every new book that comes out, the very term RAW then becomes less and less worthwhile as the available rules become more and more expansive and less and less well thought out.

[Jack Mann]

Well, the point of RAW isn't in terms of playability, it's in terms of communication. Ideally, we start from the RAW in a discussion and then move onto ways to fix it. Or at least let others know what the pitfalls in the RAW are. Most people use some manner of houserules (knowingly or not), but because each set of houserules is likely different, we can't properly communicate if we don't at least start with the RAW (if only to show where we deviate from there).

[Dark Knight Renee]

I'd say #2, default to #1 when in conflict or if just being lazy. Online errata and web enhancments I rarely if ever consult, so I don't consider them RAW.

[Aquillion]

The question makes no sense. I think a lot of people don't know what the term means at all... It sounds like a lot of people have been seeing the word in arguments and have been getting aimlessly mad at it.

RAW means "rules as written", and is a term used specifically when discussing a particular rule, class, magical item, or whatnot to say that you're just talking about the way things are set out in whatever book the topic under discussion appears in. Normally, it is only used when there is something wrong, undesirable, or otherwise questionable about the rules in question, when someone is questioning them with stuff they're plainly making up themselves, or when someone is talking about things that might make sense but are plainly not allowed under the rules.

For example: "Per RAW, a Dweomerkeeper can cast Wish for free." It is unlikely that there are very many sane DMs who would let you do that, but for the purposes of idle discussion (which many people find fun), that is indeed what the rules say. In this case, the rules in question come primarily from the Complete Divine Web Enhancement, but that doesn't matter at all.

Or, in the second case, when someone says, "Well, if you don't have 8 hours to rest, why not just rest 4 hours and prepare half your spells?", the answer would be "Per RAW, you need 8 hours of uninterrupted rest to prepare any spells at all."

The only time it matters is when two different books contradict each other; in that case, you'd have to specify just to avoid confusion. Note that usually later publications are intended to superscede earlier ones, eg "Per RAW, the original Spell of Ten Thousand Agonies (as it was printed in the Book of Nasty spells) couldn't be used that way, but it was rewritten for the Spell Compendium." If, for the second example, someone was using some odd PRC, ability, or item that let them prepare spells faster (e.g. Heward's Fortifying bedroll), they should really state it, in which case those are the rules in question for the topic at hand.

People will commonly assume that you are using the 3.5 core books for anything you're discussing here, because that's generally the central reference for the topic this forum is devoted to, but asking "what do you consider RAW" is totally absurd.

To respond to one comment in particular, though:

If I might just clarify point 4, I'd accept that as RAW, except where official books of dubious quality bring up ridiculous concepts which defy all logic and blatantly contradict previous sources.

The whole point of the term is to say, basically, "This is what the rules as written say, even if they don't make sense." For instance, you might say:

"Per RAW, if you combine these two feats, you can get infinite attacks as a standard action."

It's being used as a qualifier there--the person is saying "Yes, yes, I know that this defies all common sense, but that's what the rules as written say, so let's discuss them and laugh at them."

[Saithis Bladewing]

I view RAW as a way of interpreting all the rules, not as the rules themselves. But I got badly simu-posted while writing this, having gotten distracted and looked in a completely different window, so look above at the posts and you'll see pretty much every point I was gonna make.

[Raum]

Aquillion pretty much said it. An example is statute vs case law. Statutes are the "rules as written" while case law is how the rules are applied. While they are related, they aren't the same - just as the way most of us play probably isn't quite identical to RAW.

[Stephen_E]

4) All WotC published 3.5 material, all WotC 3.0 material except where superseded by or in conflict with 3.5 sources, all 3.0 and 3.5 errata, and all web enhancements that include rules.

4a) I'd add that within any particular campaign/game this includes any houserules that the GM has written/printed/typed and made available to players.

4a is of no particular use when have forum discussions, but that wasn't what the OP was asking QAW (Question as Written)

Stephen

[horseboy]

As chuffed as I am by my apparently rapidly increasing popularity, with each and every new book that comes out, the very term RAW then becomes less and less worthwhile as the available rules become more and more expansive and less and less well thought out.

They were thought out to begin with?

[TSGames]

RAW only applies to the books/feats/classes/PrCs that I allow in the game. Later version trumps older rules and in case of conflicts sometimes RAW can and is overridden by RAI. That's how I play.

[Caelestion]

They were thought out to begin with?

Heh. Indeed :)

I've been quoted five times, each time the same post, which was not hysterically funny, inflammatory, obscenity-laded or filled with divine wisdom. I must be doing something weird!

[Tor the Fallen]

I consider only the mechanics as 'rules'. Everything else is optional fluff.