RAW and You

[Sir Giacomo]

Great post! Should definitely be made sticky!

One issue with the examples towards the end, though:

And for the love of Gygax, be clear on what's a house rule and what's the RAW. I've seen a lot of people defending the RAW with things like, "Clerics aren't overpowered if you have their gods take away their spells," or "Druids can't turn into any animal they haven't dissected and made a DC 25 Intelligence check to show they're familiar with the creature." These are house rules. They may be implied by the rules in some way, but they are not, in fact, part of the RAW. I see a lot of people who are probably good DMs. They make a lot of rulings and house rules that sound like they make the game fun for their players. But then they'll tell you until they're blue in the face that everything they do is purely by the rules as written. They'll lay out a list of house rules that would make Monte Cook blush, and then say that the rules are balanced. The rules are balanced, hallelujah! Sure, if you change the rules.

You see, using your interpretations of RAW, RAI and rule 0 and houserule, as an example the "ex" entries for divine caster restrictions imo are more like this:
RAW: ex-cleric/ex-druid sections plus atonement spell clearly outline that there is a possibility dependent on both the player and the DM (who plays the deity as npc or sets the standard of religions in his campaign) that druids and clerics CAN lose at times ALL their class abilities.
RAI: it apparently is meant to be a rare thing and needs careful handling of DM and player. Apparently, though, due to the high power of spells of these classes it is not meant to never happen or meaning that a player regardless of his actions will never lose his powers due to the "ex" entries.
Rule 0: The DM has the ultimate call as a referee on what exactly the texts on the "ex" sections mean.
Houserule: Player and DM should agree on certain easily verifiable aspects of what would constitute sacrilege in the religion of their characters. Say, for the druid instead of teaching a secret language ever to touch cold iron or some such, and that a number of sacrileges is needed to lose ALL class abilities (and a gradual loss of powers may be preferable). In fact, since the original RAW is so openly worded, a houserule is needed in any case (also those who then say that the "ex" sections do not matter basically houserule, because in the RAW they do matter).

But otherwise, great post!

- Giacomo

[Droodle]

In the case of the Arcane Genesis trick I mentioned above, it gives a PC infinite wealth as soon as they can use the spell, making the treasure system and WBL guidelines (and by extension, the CR system) redundant. At this point your game's split so far from normal D&D that any advice you give is going to be basically useless to anyone playing with finite wealth totals.

If RAU is going to forbid this abuse of Arcane Genesis, then no one is going to be seriously suggest using it as a tactic. Admitting that RAW allows such an abuse is not the same thing as suggesting or requiring it. Also, I think you underestimate the level of RAW abuse that some people allow in their games. I've seen a DM allow a rogue with a ring of wishes and a deck of many things become insanely powerful and utterly wreck the balance of his campaign by allowing the rogue to use the ring of wishes to pick all the "good" cards from the deck without risking drawing any of the "bad" ones (which is an even bigger abuse than your Arcane Genesis example). What you are looking for is actually the Rules As Any Sane Or Moderately Intelligent Person With Even An Ounce Of Foresight Would Use Them or "RAASOMIPWEAOOFWUT", not RAU. Remember; most of the inane suggestions you see on the boards have probably been allowed in somebody's game....so they are used.

[Saph]

If RAU is going to forbid this abuse of Arcane Genesis, then no one is going to be seriously suggest using it as a tactic.

Exactly! That's the point I'm trying to make. Anyone with any kind of common sense takes RAU into account when they're giving build/RP/optimisation advice. So RAW and RAI aren't the only readings that people use.

"Rules As Any Sane Or Moderately Intelligent Person With Even An Ounce Of Foresight Would Use Them" is generally as useful or more useful than RAW. It's worth paying attention to both of them.

- Saph

[Dausuul]

Very good post.

One thing I think needs adding, though: a third category, RAU. As well as RAW and RAI, you also need Read As Used. This is less solid than Read As Written, but more solid than Read As Intended.

There are some things in the D&D ruleset that are RAW-legal, but so game-breaking/abuseable that no halfway competent gaming group will allow them. If something is so overwhelmingly powerful that it's going to be disallowed by any sane DM, then you need to start taking into account RAU when you discuss it. An example would be using Arcane Genesis to create a demiplane full of gold and diamonds, giving you infinite wealth for the cost of 5,000 XP. RAW acceptable? Maybe. RAI acceptable? Fairly obvious editing error. RAU acceptable? Definitely not - and it's the last one that's really important, because that's the one that determines whether your DM will allow it in a game.

In this sense, houserules DO have to be part of the basic assumption. Otherwise, you get cases like this:

"Could you give me advice on what equipment to get for my 18th-level wizard?"
"Get a copy of every epic item and every non-epic item in the SRD."
"What? How am I supposed to afford all that?"
"Use Arcane Genesis to create infinite wealth. It's RAW legal, so we have to assume that it's allowed."
"But there's no way my DM would allow that."
"Well, that's not our problem. You should have told us that to begin with."

- Saph

Good point. After all, it is technically a house rule to say that dead people have to lie down and stop fighting. At the same time, it's important to distinguish between house rules that are effectively universal and house rules that are merely popular.

A near-universal house rule would be, "You can't use a ring of three wishes to get three more rings of three wishes and thereby become Infinite Wish Man." The rationales vary from DM to DM--some will say it's because wishes cast from items can't produce effects that require an additional XP cost, some will say it's because they never hand out such rings in the first place and don't allow their use, and some will say you just aren't allowed to pull that crap on penalty of rocks falling--but it's safe to say that you will not be allowed to do this (or will be punished in a terminal fashion for doing it) in any campaign you're ever likely to play in. "No Infinite Wish cheese" is definitely Rules As Used.

A popular but not universal house rule would be, "You can't use a ring of three wishes to conjure up three new, permanent magic items." That's a common extrapolation of the rules... but not everyone will play that way. Some DMs might limit you to items whose total gold piece value does not exceed the value of the ring itself. Others might require you to pay the additional XP cost yourself. Still others might limit you to the 25,000 gp cap on non-magic items. So you can't claim "no using rings to wish for magic items" to be Rules As Used, even if you yourself and everyone you know play that way.

[Wehrkind]

I think part of the problem with RAW in discussion is the distinction between permissive rules systems and [the opposite type whose name eludes me]. Since D&D covers such a broad range of possibilities, there is no possibility of writing rules for every occaision and action a player my do (ie. it can't be permissive only.) However, certain aspects are extremely permissive in nature, e.g. the spell system that states exactly what spells you are allowed to choose from and memorize.
The trick here comes in the form of "well, just because the rules don't say you can't shoot lasers from your eyes doesn't mean you can!" the obvious foil being "well, they also don't explicitely state that elves breath oxygen, so do they all die?" That is to say the rules are bolted onto the assumptive rules that comprise how those playing understand reality to work. This grey area between explicit things we are allowed to do, and explicit things we are not is what causes a lot of the wierd rule issues, as well as arguments, as we insert our own concepts of the rules of reality and general ideas of how the universe D&D is supposed to simulate works.

I think this is the general stab Saph is making about RAU and Rule 0. There is a necessary degree of interpretation and indeed guess work (rarely aknowledged as such) inherent. However I agree with the OP that it is important to make a distinction between the LETTER of the rules, and the SPIRIT (between RAW and RAU) when discussing things, as sometimes insights can be found that make seemingly unworkable RAW suddenly make sense.

[Droodle]

Exactly! That's the point I'm trying to make. Anyone with any kind of common sense takes RAU into account when they're giving build/RP/optimisation advice. So RAW and RAI aren't the only readings that people use.

My real point, though, is that people who give inane advice like that in all likelihood really do that in their games.....or at least try to. Hence the need for RAW as a basis for discussions. Using RAU as a basis, nearly anything would go, since every possible (ab)use for every possible rule has probably been (ab)used by someone who thinks that said (ab)use is not only perfectly acceptable, but completely balanced. In a RAW discussion, inane (yet legal) suggestions are easily sidestepped by saying "yeah, it's RAW, but it's slso too game-breaking for me to use."

[Like a Lion]

You can't wish for magic items with a Ring of Wishes as per RAW, actually--the ring only has the base XP for three wishes (15k) as per the price. It'd need an extra store of XP to grant you items, since those cost XP.

[Piccamo]

You're making it out to be some sort of impossible paradox when it really isn't.

Look; if 95% of DMs won't allow something in a game, then it doesn't matter that much if the remaining 5% will. Whether you consider something "sane" may be subjective, but the fraction of DMs that will or won't allow it is not subjective - it's a hard number. So any useful discussion of the game has to take it into account, unless you want everything you say to only be relevant to 5% of the players.

In the case of the Arcane Genesis trick I mentioned above, it gives a PC infinite wealth as soon as they can use the spell, making the treasure system and WBL guidelines (and by extension, the CR system) redundant. At this point your game's split so far from normal D&D that any advice you give is going to be basically useless to anyone playing with finite wealth totals.

Playing D&D requires a certain minimum of common sense. There's no way around this. Trying to reduce the game to RAW-only with no common sense at all just ends up producing an unplayable mess.

- Saph

Who are you to say what 95% of DMs say in their campaigns? Have you done surveys asking all the other DMs who are posting in these threads? Do you believe that your grasp of common sense is the only one?

In your example you state something that you or I would consider to be ZOMG BROKEN!!!11! In the hands of a DM they might explain the source of wealth for a kingdom or the source of all precious metals within the earth. Even rules that would be game-breaking in the hands of the PCs may not be game-breaking in the hands of the DM.

The majority of things that seem to be against your "RAU" only happen at high levels. Game worlds are not populated by very many high-level people. Further, at these levels characters already do things that would defy common sense. If I were to tell you that I knew this guy who could turn into a huge being made entirely of fire 3 times per day you would probably look at me quite mad. It defies our normal perception of reality. That is what Fantasy is.

Your "RAU" is an attempt to restrict that fantasy. I'm sorry if my opinions on things does not mesh with yours. While we may agree on this use of Arcane Genesis, we may not agree on other "RAU".

You seem like a fairly intelligent person, please do not insult yourself or me with using a single example to try to prove your whole point when there are many others that disprove it just as easily. For all intents and purposes yours might be the exception that proves the rule.

[Saph]

Who are you to say what 95% of DMs say in their campaigns? Have you done surveys asking all the other DMs who are posting in these threads? Do you believe that your grasp of common sense is the only one?

Why do I need to have spoken to every single DM in the entire world to make a judgement about what they usually will or won't allow? You seem to have a problem with the whole concept of inductive reasoning.

In your example you state something that you or I would consider to be ZOMG BROKEN!!!11! In the hands of a DM they might explain the source of wealth for a kingdom or the source of all precious metals within the earth. Even rules that would be game-breaking in the hands of the PCs may not be game-breaking in the hands of the DM.

The majority of things that seem to be against your "RAU" only happen at high levels.

Okay then, if that's too high-level for you, what about Dausuul's example? By RAW, there's nothing saying that a dead character can't carry on walking around, fighting, casting spells, etc. So, technically, ruling that they can't is a houserule.

Think it's reasonable to assume that houserule? Or is that unacceptable, too?

You seem like a fairly intelligent person, please do not insult yourself or me with using a single example to try to prove your whole point when there are many others that disprove it just as easily. For all intents and purposes yours might be the exception that proves the rule.

Haven't really got a clue what you're talking about here. I'm saying that any kind of useful discussion of D&D has to take into account RAU, and that RAU can often be guessed pretty easily. It's not some kind of impossible-to-determine paradox.

- Saph

[Like a Lion]

...the RAW doesn't need to explicitly define every real-world term it uses. If it says "dead", it means dead--which involves the inability to take actions. It doesn't have to tell us "you can't take any actions when you're dead" anymore than it has to tell us "you can't have four functioning arms as a human".

[Wehrkind]

That's just the point though Saph, given the nature of RAW and RAU in D&D, we can only objectively agree on RAW as fact. RAU is subjective, and so while we can discuss what makes sense, and in fact should do so, what makes sense is NOT RAW, and thus can change for different people and still be the same game. RAW is what the game is, RAU is what manner we apply the game in. The point is that RAU is not universal to the game, and can not be guessed at. In fact, arriving at a proper RAU is generally the conclusion these arguments are searching for.
If you do wish to use a RAU as a premise in your argument, you should note it as such, and understand that (unlike RAW) any one can simply say "No, we don't play like that" and make part of your argument invalid. That is why RAW is more useful, since it is the Rules that define D&D, and thus if we are talking about it, they are assumed to be concrete and immutable for the purpose of the debate. If one wishes to propose a change to those rules, then they should point it out as such, and the validity of that change can then be debated.

[Piccamo]

Why do I need to have spoken to every single DM in the entire world to make a judgement about what they usually will or won't allow? You seem to have a problem with the whole concept of inductive reasoning.

Inductive reasoning is a process by which you make assumptions based on limited observation. It seems like what you are doing is making a weak induction. "I put a book on a shelf, therefore all books are on shelves."

Just because you don't like something does not make it wrong. I don't like grapefruits, but I don't think everyone who does is insane.

Okay then, if that's too high-level for you, what about Dausuul's example? By RAW, there's nothing saying that a dead character can't carry on walking around, fighting, casting spells, etc. So, technically, ruling that they can't is a houserule.

Think it's reasonable to assume that houserule? Or is that unacceptable, too?

I think you are going out of your way to prove a point that doesn't really exist. 9th level spell effects are not comparable to a poorly written description of a condition.

I would agree that your death "houserule" is favorable, but I would disagree that every person should be forced to play with it. I'm not the king of DnD.

[Matthew]

...the RAW doesn't need to explicitly define every real-world term it uses. If it says "dead", it means dead--which involves the inability to take actions. It doesn't have to tell us "you can't take any actions when you're dead" anymore than it has to tell us "you can't have four functioning arms as a human".

If only that was true. Just take a look at the discussion on Prone, Levitating whilst Prone and definitions of the 'ground' to see the problems created by defined and undefined RAW terms. For the rules to function they often require interpretation and common agreement on terminology, especially when dealing with otherwise unlegislated actions or events.

The RAW covers many things adequettely, but it cannot legislate for everything. Even so, it is important to be clear about the difference between what the rules say and what they are interpreted to mean.

[Saph]

That's just the point though Saph, given the nature of RAW and RAU in D&D, we can only objectively agree on RAW as fact.

Actually, we can't even do that. There are plenty of cases where the rules as written are ambiguous.

RAU is subjective, and so while we can discuss what makes sense, and in fact should do so, what makes sense is NOT RAW, and thus can change for different people and still be the same game. RAW is what the game is, RAU is what manner we apply the game in. The point is that RAU is not universal to the game, and can not be guessed at.

It CAN be guessed at. It is NOT that difficult. You do not need to be some kind of psychic to figure out that in the majority of games, a Pun-Pun build will not be allowed. (Possible at level 1, AFAIK.) I have to admit that it annoys me a bit when people try to tell me that it's impossible for me to guess RAU. I've done it, for multiple groups and multiple games. It's not impossible. Of course it's a guess and it isn't going to be 100% certain, but nothing in life is.

RAW is a good starting point, but it is NOT enough to base a game on, and assuming that game-breaking things will be allowed because they're RAW-legal is, in the majority of games, simply wrong.

- Saph

[Saph]

Inductive reasoning is a process by which you make assumptions based on limited observation. It seems like what you are doing is making a weak induction. "I put a book on a shelf, therefore all books are on shelves."

Just because you don't like something does not make it wrong.

It's nothing to do with what I like, nor is it a weak induction. I'll go through it step by step.

Evidence 1: All D&D DMs I've played with will not allow infinite wealth for a 18th level character.
Evidence 2: The vast majority of D&D DMs I've spoken to, met with, or heard about will not allow infinite wealth for an 18th level character.
Evidence 3: I have no reason to believe that these DMs are unrepresentative, and several reasons to believe that they are representative (good sample, large number, etc.)
Evidence 4: Arcane Genesis, used as RAW, allows an 18th level character to gain infinite wealth.

Conclusion: It is probable that any given DM will not allow Arcane Genesis to be used as RAW.

Now, which part of that reasoning do you find invalid?

- Saph

[Wehrkind]

Actually, we can't even do that. There are plenty of cases where the rules as written are ambiguous.

It CAN be guessed at. It is NOT that difficult. You do not need to be some kind of psychic to figure out that in the majority of games, a Pun-Pun build will not be allowed. (Possible at level 1, AFAIK.) I have to admit that it annoys me a bit when people try to tell me that it's impossible for me to guess RAU. I've done it, for multiple groups and multiple games. It's not impossible. Of course it's a guess and it isn't going to be 100% certain, but nothing in life is.

RAW is a good starting point, but it is NOT enough to base a game on, and assuming that game-breaking things will be allowed because they're RAW-legal is, in the majority of games, simply wrong.

- Saph

You can not ALWAYS take RAW by the letter, because as you say there are ambiguous rules and such. However, it is still the only thing that you can sometimes take as absolute.
I think the problem people have with your argument is that you seem to be equating RAW and RAU in terms of function in an argument. However, objective things like RAW that we can go and look up when needed have more priority than subjective ideas that are RAU. The idea is to improve our sense of what RAU, from the basis of RAW.
The trouble with using RAU as a universal basis of understand is that it is not universal. So while it is reasonable to say "Ok, we all agree that Pun-Pun is not the answer to 'Optimize this Build', correct? Ok based on that..." or something similar it is not a good idea to take such assumptions as given, particularly if RAW directly says they are ok.
The rules ARE D&D, and ARE what the game is based on. The trouble is the rules require and assume a grasp on reality to fill in their gaps. However, that does not mean that one's grasp on reality can be taken as a given in a conversation about the rules. Only the rules can be taken as a given, which is to say RAW.

[Wehrkind]

It's nothing to do with what I like, nor is it a weak induction. I'll go through it step by step.

Evidence 1: All D&D DMs I've played with will not allow infinite wealth for a 18th level character.
Evidence 2: The vast majority of D&D DMs I've spoken to, met with, or heard about will not allow infinite wealth for an 18th level character.
Evidence 3: I have no reason to believe that these DMs are unrepresentative, and several reasons to believe that they are representative (good sample, large number, etc.)
Evidence 4: Arcane Genesis, used as RAW, allows an 18th level character to gain infinite wealth.

Conclusion: It is probable that any given DM will not allow Arcane Genesis to be used as RAW.

Now, which part of that reasoning do you find invalid?

- Saph

No part of the reasoning is invalid (though your sample size I find questionable). However, the fact that the best conclusion you can come up with is only "probable" makes it weak, based on your sample size, and the simple fact that there might be a DM out there who uses it as RAW because he found the RAW way to avoid infinite wealth, or a RAU way. If we were talking about ways to use the spell by RAW to avoid infinite wealth (a undesirable result) we are looking for a set of RAU to fix the issue. Inserting "Well, just don't let it do that" is a possible solution RAU, but NOT a premise to start from.

[Piccamo]

Saph,
I will end my debate with you as it is clear you are not going to be swayed here or now. The only thing I have left to say is that I cannot say with every degree of certainty that there is no rhinoceros in this room.

[Dausuul]

You can not ALWAYS take RAW by the letter, because as you say there are ambiguous rules and such. However, it is still the only thing that you can sometimes take as absolute.

Either you can take RAW as absolute or you can't--there's no "sometimes." That's like saying an object is "somewhat unique." Absolute is a yes/no. It is or it isn't.

The advantage to RAW is not that it can be taken as absolute, but that it is a common reference point that everyone can work from. Saph is suggesting that there are certain houserules that are so common that they also provide a workable reference point. (Most of these houserules are along the lines of "such-and-such horribly abusive exploit is not allowed." Pun-Pun is the classic case.)

I think the problem people have with your argument is that you seem to be equating RAW and RAU in terms of function in an argument. However, objective things like RAW that we can go and look up when needed have more priority than subjective ideas that are RAU. The idea is to improve our sense of what RAU, from the basis of RAW.
The trouble with using RAU as a universal basis of understand is that it is not universal. So while it is reasonable to say "Ok, we all agree that Pun-Pun is not the answer to 'Optimize this Build', correct? Ok based on that..." or something similar it is not a good idea to take such assumptions as given, particularly if RAW directly says they are ok.

The thing is that if we had to enumerate all those RAU assumptions, we'd never get anything said. I'm certainly not going to start off every post I make in an optimization thread by saying, "Well, assuming Pun-Pun isn't allowed, or Infinite Titans, or this exploit, or that exploit, or..." Obviously Pun-Pun and Infinite Titans aren't allowed. That's a given.

There is certainly a grey area between RAU and "popular house rule." At the same time, there's also stuff that is clearly RAU and that should not have to be explicitly stated.

The rules ARE D&D, and ARE what the game is based on. The trouble is the rules require and assume a grasp on reality to fill in their gaps. However, that does not mean that one's grasp on reality can be taken as a given in a conversation about the rules. Only the rules can be taken as a given, which is to say RAW.

All conversation involves unspoken assumptions. You can't get away from that, not even by standing on the RAW. You can only do your best to limit your assumptions to ones you're pretty sure are shared by the people you're talking to, and try to clear up the confusion that results when one of your assumptions proves not to be shared.

The rules do not say that dead people have to lie down and not move. Since D&D often defines its terms in ways that do not agree with how those terms are used in real life (e.g., lying on your back is "prone" in D&D but not in real life), one cannot simply assume that the real-life definition of any given word will carry over.

But everybody knows that death in D&D means you lie down and stop moving, and it would be idiotic to expect everyone to preface their remarks on combat with "Assuming death means you can't keep fighting..." That's where Rules As Used comes in--although I have to say that I'm not entirely clear on the distinction between Rules As Used and Rules As Intended, since it was certainly the intention of the designers that death should make you stop moving.

[Diggorian]

Arent Rules As Interpreted and Used essentially the same thing? RAI=RAU?

RAW when read are interpreted then used based on how they were interpreted, right?

[Jack Mann]

Giacomo, the point is that, while these situations might be implied by the RAW, they are not actually part of the RAW.

Saph, "RAU" is more than adequately covered under RAI and house rules. Some houserules are very common, and might even be near-universal, but you can't be sure everyone uses or even knows about that particular house rule. This is why we start with the RAW, and then move from there to what we think is reasonable.

Daus, I think you're misinterpreting what Wehrkind means. He isn't saying that the RAW is sometimes an absolute, but that sometimes, it's the only thing that can be taken as an absolute. That is, while the RAW is always absolute (we're all using the same rulebooks as our basis), it isn't always the only absolute. For example, if you're in the same game as another person, then the houserules of that game can be taken as an absolute. But this wouldn't be the case if you were discussing rules with someone from another game.

Digg, I would say that Rules as Interpreted and Rules as Used are both part of house rules. Rules as Intended is more a guide for making these house rules.

EDIT: Gah, you edited, Digg!

[Yechezkiel]

Arent Rules As Interpreted and Used essentially the same thing? RAI=RAU?

RAW when read are interpreted then used based on how they were interpreted, right?

Sshhhh... fundamentalists and liberals are fighting.

[Emperor Tippy]

Saph, I allow it.

Why? Because my players face maybe 1 combat encounter per level at levels 17+. The players still have to mine the gold, which takes a good long while.

The CR system and most of combat brakes down almost entirely at levels 15+. So what do I do, move on to that thing called roleplay and have numerous quests and missions that the PC's wealth and combat prowess only partially help.

And the other opponents of the same level get the same resources.


RAW is the rules as written. It should be the basis for every answer you give someone (unless they ask specifically for houserules).

The RAI is the rules as they were most likely intended. This should be included as a caveat on RAW statements.

For example:

"When dead you don't actually have to lay down and stop taking actions. X, Y, and Z are all the mechanical effects of being dead.

Now thsi is most likely an oversight and the rules were most likely intended to say that you can't take actions when dead."

RAU should be included after prepositional phrases such as: In my games we, A good houserule is, I use it like, etc.

[Deepblue706]

A+, Jack Mann.

Also, I like the owl.

[Draz74]

If RAU is going to forbid this abuse of Arcane Genesis, then no one is going to be seriously suggest using it as a tactic.

If only that were true. Unfortunately, I have seen plenty of posts on these Forums involving violations of the RAU. Candles of Invocation to start the Titan loop at low levels. Even Pun-Pun has been advocated.

I can see the value in having everything based strictly on the RAW and their non-subjective commonality. That would be great for having clear, concise discussions on these boards.

Unfortunately, since people don't stop making ridiculous suggestions based on the RAW, I have to side with Saph and say that productive discussions on these boards will only result if we assume some RAU and save enormous amounts of time based on them.

And Tippy, I don't want to have to precede a lot of my posts with, "Well, in my game ..." so I can avoid the dumber parts of the RAW, like Monks being proficient with Unarmed Strike in any discussion of Monks. Waste of time! So I think the Forums would be more productive with some RAU assumed, even if some of them actually are disagreed with by a small minority of DM's out there, like you and your campaigns with (arcane) Genesis wealth loops allowed. Discussing the game in a way that doesn't apply to your campaign is unfortunate, but to me, it seems like it will save more time than the problems it will cause.

[LotharBot]

RAW is the rules as written. It should be the basis for every answer you give someone (unless they ask specifically for houserules).

Why is it better to give a RAW answer to a question where a RAI answer would be more enlightening to the person asking? Why is it better to default to RAW than to something else? You've stated in numerous threads that RAW "should be" the default, but you also acknowledge that RAW answers often don't actually answer the question at hand and that your purpose in giving them is to show that RAW is broken. To me, that suggests defaulting to RAW 100% of the time is not the best way to answer questions.

IMO, we shouldn't default to RAW or to RAI, and we shouldn't assume the person asking will understand that we're talking RAW or RAI. Instead, we should simply be explicit -- when we answer RAW we should say "according to RAW", and when we answer RAI we should say "the rules seem intended to allow", and when we answer houserules we should say "[ I / most DMs I've talked to] allow this but not that, because that is horribly broken."

The problem with assuming anything different is that we have this same discussion pop up a couple times a week, because we're not all assuming the same thing. We have the same group of people saying "we have to answer RAW and RAW alone", and the same group of people saying "we have to answer RAI", and the same group of people saying "houserules are a perfectly valid answer", and in the mean time the person who asked the question is left wondering why he can't get an answer.

Let's forget about telling the other groups they should do things our way, and just be explicit about how we're formulating our own answers. If you answer RAW, say so. If you answer RAI, say so. If you answer houserules, say so. If you're not sure and you're just giving your best guess / recollection / opinion, say so.

[Deepblue706]

I think some of you guys are missing the point.

RAW is the only thing that can be universally assumed if you're going about presenting a logical argument.

If a RAI answer might be better than a RAW one, that doesn't diminish the importance of what stands on RAW. Any variation on RAW must be clearly stated for it to be fully understood by all parties that may partake.

Just because we don't like an idea in RAW doesn't erase it from (or rewrite it in) the countless books that are sold.

This is the only way to maintain coherence.

[Jasdoif]

I believe RAW is generally useful for three things:

• Helping ensure we all know what the heck we're talking about
• Letting players know what works if there's no DM decision that alters the RAW involved
• Letting DMs know what RAW issues should be considered for house ruling

Those first two I believe have been very well established in this thread already. That last one, though, is important too.

Suppose a DM decides that candle of invocation needs to have the calling ability removed, because they believe it's too dang powerful. Is it better for them to make that decision after reading "it works by RAW" in a forum post, or to make it after a player's attempted to use it; leaving the DM to either live with it, deal with its effects or remove it retroactively?

You can't try to fix it unless you know it's broken. Whether someone else thinks it isn't broken, is too dumb to even consider happening in a game, etc., is irrelevant to your game; you're the one DMing. That's where "it works by RAW" comes in. Without it, a DM would need to encounter and decide on each of these situations mid-game, and it's a lot easier on the players to restrict something from the get-go then to restrict it in the middle of the game as they're trying to use it.

[Emperor Tippy]

And Tippy, I don't want to have to precede a lot of my posts with, "Well, in my game ..." so I can avoid the dumber parts of the RAW, like Monks being proficient with Unarmed Strike in any discussion of Monks. Waste of time! So I think the Forums would be more productive with some RAU assumed, even if some of them actually are disagreed with by a small minority of DM's out there, like you and your campaigns with (arcane) Genesis wealth loops allowed. Discussing the game in a way that doesn't apply to your campaign is unfortunate, but to me, it seems like it will save more time than the problems it will cause.

Sure, the forums would be more productive if some RAU was assumed. But RAU are houserules. They differ between games and DM's. I even change them from game to game in my games.

I know many, many people who use stuff in multiple ways depending on the specific game.

RAU can not be assumed.

Why is it better to give a RAW answer to a question where a RAI answer would be more enlightening to the person asking? Why is it better to default to RAW than to something else? You've stated in numerous threads that RAW "should be" the default, but you also acknowledge that RAW answers often don't actually answer the question at hand and that your purpose in giving them is to show that RAW is broken. To me, that suggests defaulting to RAW 100% of the time is not the best way to answer questions.

The RAW sucks. They are broken and nigh worthless. I have gone through before and added or removed words from about 90% of the published spells to remove most of the D&D magic brokenness. My fixes created spells that were most likely how they were intended to be.

I can't assume that anyoen else uses a single one of these fixes. Even if they are RAI.

RAW is used as the foundation and should be defaulted to because it is what everyone knows.

IMO, we shouldn't default to RAW or to RAI, and we shouldn't assume the person asking will understand that we're talking RAW or RAI. Instead, we should simply be explicit -- when we answer RAW we should say "according to RAW", and when we answer RAI we should say "the rules seem intended to allow", and when we answer houserules we should say "[ I / most DMs I've talked to] allow this but not that, because that is horribly broken."

I almost always preface all my rules statements with one of those.

The problem with assuming anything different is that we have this same discussion pop up a couple times a week, because we're not all assuming the same thing. We have the same group of people saying "we have to answer RAW and RAW alone", and the same group of people saying "we have to answer RAI", and the same group of people saying "houserules are a perfectly valid answer", and in the mean time the person who asked the question is left wondering why he can't get an answer.

Let's forget about telling the other groups they should do things our way, and just be explicit about how we're formulating our own answers. If you answer RAW, say so. If you answer RAI, say so. If you answer houserules, say so. If you're not sure and you're just giving your best guess / recollection / opinion, say so.

The real problem is that many people won't acknowledge that what they say is a houserule. They say that the RAW says X.

And other people almost always respond with houseruels, even when the OP wants a simple RAW answer.

[Damionte]

Why is it better to give a RAW answer to a question where a RAI answer would be more enlightening to the person asking? Why is it better to default to RAW than to something else? You've stated in numerous threads that RAW "should be" the default, but you also acknowledge that RAW answers often don't actually answer the question at hand and that your purpose in giving them is to show that RAW is broken. To me, that suggests defaulting to RAW 100% of the time is not the best way to answer questions.

I agree. I feel we get more done and service the community better when we try to answer questions in a way that would be more useful the person asking the question. though at the same time I understand the entertainment value that some get from bashing about the same old points, since as has been said, geeks like to argue.

a couple of good recent examples of when the RAW works or doesn't for asnwering a question.

The recent thread where that brand new GM was asking for help dealing with his lvl 4 party who had 30+ AC's. That was clearly a case where RAW was the helpful answer. This was a person who's lack of knowledge of the RAW was hindering his game and thier enjoyment of it.

Compared to the Outsiders gaining Martial weapon Proficiency thread. Where the OP opened with essentially, "This seems horribly borken would anyone else ban this." Which devolved into a lecture on hwo it's RAW and should work as written.

I feel that one of the main problems we face when dealing with RAW is when we don't even agree on what the RAW is.