Monsters Advancing By Class

[Gruftzwerg]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

If you want to play this inane word game, nothing at all is RAW because the books are printed, not written.

[loky1109]

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]

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]

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.

[rel]

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]

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]

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

[NontheistCleric]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Spoiler: Tangentially relevant aside

Show

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.

Spoiler: If anyone cares about the soecifics of the argument

Show

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

because playing 3.x 100% strict RAW is, as you say, crazy

Wrong word. Not crazy, just impossible.

[Gnaeus]

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]

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.