RAW and You

[Jack Mann]

Hmm. I don't think that Caelic's post is really opposed to mine, Merlin. As I said, very few people play purely by the RAW, and at the least, interpretation is necessary. My basic point is that when you make the interpretations, and especially when you make changes, it's important to let people know straight off that it's an interpretation, rather than a clearly-stated part of the RAW.

He even admits that builds (the focus of his post) should stick to the rules as they are written, even though they require a certain amount of interpretation. But just as in optimization, when you have to make an interpretation, especially one that might be wrong, then it's important to note it and then defend it, rather than simply treating it as the One True Way, rendering builds (or arguments) invulnerable.

The RAW is flawed, yes, but it's still the basic framework we have for communicating about the rules, and so it's an important starting point for any discussions. It's the place marked on everyone's map. If you want people to know where you're coming from, you have to show where it is in relation to the RAW.

Of course, if I misinterpreted you, and you weren't implying my post was contradicted by Caelic's, then I apologize for the unnecessary verbiage.

EDIT:

Incorrect. The newer source trumps the older.

RAW is all books and errata. Core is DMG, PHB, MM

Actually, primary source trumps newer, unless the newer source is explicitly meant as errata. If, say, Complete Warrior had something in it that contradicted the combat rules in the PHB, then it's wrong, unless that section states that it is intended to act as errata.