RAW and You

[Like a Lion]

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.

Uh, no. There were two arguments: one was about whether it *really did* grant you the proficiencies by RAW. The other was about whether it was broken. They were both important.

[Damionte]

Also to answer an earlier question newer source does trump except when it comes to primary source.

Nothing trumps Primary source. Essentially the first time a basic rule comes up, unless otherwise stated in the newer text.

For instance the players handbook has the rules on combat and character creation. it is the primary source for such things. So anyhting else that has rules on combat and character creation follows the same guidlines as in the playes handbook unless it specifically says it does not. If it's tryin gto say the same thing but somehow words it differently the wording in the PHB trumps.

For instance the errata is specifically meant to be a re-write on things in the PHB and thus trumps what's written in the PHB.

If you want the full discription you can download an errata sheet from the WOTC site. it has the text which explains this concept.

[Jack Mann]

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.

Well, the problem here was that someone (not pointing any fingers), said that it didn't work that way. The way he phrased it implied that the RAW didn't allow it. This person, going unnamed, was wrong, either because he had misphrased what he was saying (intending to say, "I wouldn't allow it") or because he didn't understand the rules. It was because of him that the RAW was dragged into the discussion.

[Damionte]

Uh, no. There were two arguments: one was about whether it *really did* grant you the proficiencies by RAW. The other was about whether it was broken. They were both important.

That was kinda the point of the part you qouted.

The discussion in this thread I believe is about clarity.

For instance in the Outsiders thread it took a while for us to get to the point where everyone understood there were 2 distinct arguments going on. The two arguments were mingling in the thread which was causing part of the problem. Hell it's most of the problem really. I suppose it's one of the limits of this medium. It's not always clear who and what you're responding to. Even when using quotes.

EDIT:

Just in case the unnamed is me. It was a non raw discussion. It's not my fault if the folks coming in after the fact didn'ty always take on that intent. It was also a point of contention mentioned in this thread that the RAW could also not be agreed apun.

I believe that RAI has something to do with how RAW are interpreted. Especially in a thread where we're trying to come up with the RAI and not simply quoting what the RAW are.

[Emperor Tippy]

Again, Damionte, it was a case of a certain unnamed individual saying that the feat didn't, by RAW, work that way. It did. That person would not acknowledge that the feat actually did work that way by RAW.

If the person had said "I use it like XXX because otherwise it is broken" the debate never would have come up.

This is what I was getting at before, people need to acknowledge houserules.

[Indon]

"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.

How is this different than RAI?

Rules as Intended is taken by applying common sense to the rules in order to get what is supposed to be there. Since we assume Wizards of the Coast isn't trying to make a bad game, then Rules as Intended are biased towards making sense and not rendering a D&D game to be lower quality.


I do have a question, though. How do you describe rules that aren't written down at all?

To use an example in the original post: What are the criteria for a Druid to be able to Wild Shape into an animal?

Does this fall under RAI, or do we have another category for it (Rules as Fill-in)?

[Like a Lion]

It's different from Rules As Intended, because something can be not intended by the authors but still be something any sane person would accept, or intended by the authors but *not* something any sane person would accept (the Mad Monk publishes a D&D book, say).

[Damionte]

We've gone full circle now and now have a case example of the argument in this thread.

What use does the pure RAW have in this kind of case. This is the same as the you don't have to lie down and stop moving when dead argument. The argument you guys made to refute my RAW interpretation was that it doesn't explicibly say you can't do that. while my argument was that it also doesn't explicibly say you can & it makes no logical sense for you to be able to do so.

Many of you in the thread go on about how this is RAW but I wouldn't use it that way. "Assuming we can agree that it's RAW that way" why even bother with that judgement. In the end many are not going to do it that way. In the same manner that folks generally lay down and stop moving when they die.

I suppose like in the Battle For Gobwin Knob I end up winning by losing.

EDIT: Man I've only been on these boards a couple weeks and I can already tell that Tippy and I are rarely going to agree on anything; simply form the way we aproach answering questions. He's almost always coming form the point of "This is another example of how broken the RAW is." While I am usually going to be going, "This is probably broken. How should we rule it. here's how I'd rule it." I see a lot of long arguments in our future.

[Jasdoif]

I do have a question, though. How do you describe rules that aren't written down at all?

To use an example in the original post: What are the criteria for a Druid to be able to Wild Shape into an animal?

Does this fall under RAI, or do we have another category for it (Rules as Fill-in)?

Not being written, they are by definition not RAW. It'd be a big stretch to call them RAI either, because how can it be "rules as intended" if there aren't any rules present to intent with?

Any attempt to enforce these things will require house rules. So this is house rule territory.

[Jack Mann]

How is this different than RAI?

Rules as Intended is taken by applying common sense to the rules in order to get what is supposed to be there. Since we assume Wizards of the Coast isn't trying to make a bad game, then Rules as Intended are biased towards making sense and not rendering a D&D game to be lower quality.


I do have a question, though. How do you describe rules that aren't written down at all?

To use an example in the original post: What are the criteria for a Druid to be able to Wild Shape into an animal?

Does this fall under RAI, or do we have another category for it (Rules as Fill-in)?

That would be a house rule, no matter how you rule it. As I said, there are times when you have to interpret the rules to some extent. Since no rules were provided, each DM has to come up with the standard they're going to use, from "eh, you've got ranks in knowledge (nature), so you probably familiar with most animals" to "you need to spend some time studying the creature carefully before you can change into it."

[Saph]

How is this different than RAI?

Well, they're different things. One is how the writer of a rulebook intended things then, one is how the people who use the rulebook play things now.

In practice, though, anyone who pays attention to one usually pays attention to the other anyway.

I do have a question, though. How do you describe rules that aren't written down at all? To use an example in the original post: What are the criteria for a Druid to be able to Wild Shape into an animal?

Rules as Used, I guess, since they're not written and it's hard to figure out how they were intended - so all that really matters is how people play it.

- Saph

[Indon]

It's different from Rules As Intended, because something can be not intended by the authors but still be something any sane person would accept, or intended by the authors but *not* something any sane person would accept (the Mad Monk publishes a D&D book, say).

But, assuming Rasputin is not still alive and writing for Wizards of the Coast, and that unless something _is_ outrageous we wouldn't know it's not intended, there seems to be no distinction.

[Dausuul]

*stops arguing and goes back to meditate on the original post for a bit*

Okay.

In general, I agree with the first post in this thread... except: I do not agree that in cases of conflict between RAW, RAI, and RAU, it is sufficient to rely on "is" meaning RAW and "should" meaning RAI and "generally is played as" meaning RAU. Any time you make a statement that is likely to conflict with how most people play the game, you should specify where it's coming from.

"What are the criteria for druids to be able to wild shape into an animal?"
"Well, the only rule given is that you have to be 'familiar' with it. If you want to get really technical, the only definition of 'familiar' given in the RAW is that for sorcerors and wizards, so you'd have to multi-class... but the obvious intent is that you have to know something about the animal you want to turn into. How much? Well, that's open to interpretation. In my campaign, we interpret it as X."

[Ramza00]

How is this different than RAI?

Rules as Intended is taken by applying common sense to the rules in order to get what is supposed to be there. Since we assume Wizards of the Coast isn't trying to make a bad game, then Rules as Intended are biased towards making sense and not rendering a D&D game to be lower quality.


I do have a question, though. How do you describe rules that aren't written down at all?

To use an example in the original post: What are the criteria for a Druid to be able to Wild Shape into an animal?

Does this fall under RAI, or do we have another category for it (Rules as Fill-in)?

You are making an assumption, you are assuming that WOTC wants a balanced game, after seeing the Planar Shepard, I don't know if we can make that assumption anymore.

Thus its probably better to separate the two.

[Emperor Tippy]

We've gone full circle now and now have a case example of the argument in this thread.

What use does the pure RAW have in this kind of case. This is the same as the you don't have to lie down and stop moving when dead argument. The argument you guys made to refute my RAW interpretation was that it doesn't explicibly say you can't do that. while my argument was that it also doesn't explicibly say you can & it makes no logical sense for you to be able to do so.

No. Dead is defined in D&D. It is a condition. It has various effects. The dictionary definition doesn't matter at all.

The otherworldly argument is similarly clear. The feat says you gain the outsider type. That is as clear as can be. The outsider type gives you some benefits, again as clear as can be.

The chain of important goes: The definition given by wotc. The dictionary definition. The common use definition.

Many of you in the thread go on about how this is RAW but I wouldn't use it that way. "Assuming we can agree that it's RAW that way" why even bother with that judgement. In the end many are not going to do it that way. In the same manner that folks generally lay down and stop moving when they die.

See, what is with the assumptions. I will argue that something is RAW even if I personally don't allow it or change it. My stating something is rules legal is different from whether or not I would allow it, would use it, or think its broken or not.

I will argue any side of any debate with enough passion to make whoever I am arguing with think that it is what I personally believe. It isn't fairly often.

I suppose like in the Battle For Gobwin Knob I end up winning by losing.

Not really.

EDIT: Man I've only been on these boards a couple weeks and I can already tell that Tippy and I are rarely going to agree on anything; simply form the way we aproach answering questions. He's almost always coming form the point of "This is another example of how broken the RAW is." While I am usually going to be going, "This is probably broken. How should we rule it. here's how I'd rule it." I see a lot of long arguments in our future.

Meh. It won't be the first time.

[Dausuul]

No. Dead is defined in D&D. It is a condition. It has various effects. The dictionary definition doesn't matter at all.

Yes and no.

The dictionary definition doesn't matter as far as RAW is concerned. It does matter as far as RAI and actual play are concerned, because this is a case where the RAW is clearly missing something, and the reason we know what it's missing is that we know what "dead" means in the dictionary. While the "dead man walking" case is an amusing example of a technical hole in the rules, it has no applicability to anybody's actual campaign.

Suppose I ask "Hey, what happens to my character when he dies?" A useful answer would be something like "In the standard cosmology, your soul goes to one of the outer planes, depending on your alignment, and becomes a petitioner there. You'll eventually merge with the plane or get promoted to an outsider, unless somebody resurrects you."

A non-useful answer would be, "You can keep doing whatever you want, you don't fall down or stop moving or anything."

Both answers are RAW (I think; the first might actually be RAI, I haven't made a careful study of the rules on the afterlife). Both are relevant to the question and both, if correct in a given campaign, would be valuable information to have.

But while one can reasonably assume the first answer is correct unless the DM has gone out of her way to house-rule otherwise, one cannot make the same assumption about the second answer. Most DMs don't bother laying down an explicit house-rule on dead men walking. The house-rule is there but unstated, because it doesn't have to be stated.

[Callix]

On the Dead Man Walking debate, the line "the soul departs the body" may indicate that even if the character is not obliged to stop taking actions, particularly if not unconscious, the actions may not be under the control of the character's will, being the player in the case of the PCs. This allows an impromptu decapitee to stumble around for a few seconds in a horror/war setting, but doesn't allow for post-death spell nuking. But this is probably RAI. It's had the insane loopholes taken out of it. Now only the sane loopholes are left.

[Diggorian]

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.

Isnt this agreeable to most folks on this thread? Cant we rally around this?

Geeks do like to argue, but doesnt arguing without good reason cross us into ... dork territory?

[Brother_Franklin]

To percieve the rules is to interpret the rules.

Meaning is use.

This all really comes down to Wittenstien.

But anyway, adding more acronyms is not going to help.

If someone asks you if Monks have proficency with their fists. You say yes.

The primary reason some newb comes to a board like this and asks that level question is beause the RAW has already failed them. They don't need to see-

RAW:no
RAI:yes
RAU: yes

[greenknight]

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.

I think you've missed a very important point here Saph:

[*]Letting DMs know what RAW issues should be considered for house ruling[/list]

You can't try to fix it unless you know it's broken.

That's a pretty eloquent summary of the situation. Ideally, RAW should always equal what you call RAU, but we all know it doesn't. Many discussions of the RAW revolve around identifying problems, and proposing fixes. I notice that many different people propose many different fixes, which is where your definition of RAU breaks down. Even if the vast majority of DMs agree there's a problem, they probably don't all agree on the same solution. So the best fix is to highlight the problem and try to get WotC to release errata which solves it in a consistant way. The second best option would be to make other DMs aware of the potential issue and propose a solution (or a range of solutions) which should fix it.

Man I've only been on these boards a couple weeks and I can already tell that Tippy and I are rarely going to agree on anything; simply form the way we aproach answering questions.

You may be right, but I should mention that you're both doing essentially the same thing. You're both identifying problems with the RAW, and in many cases suggesting how those problems can be fixed.

[brian c]

Also to answer an earlier question newer source does trump except when it comes to primary source.

Nothing trumps Primary source. Essentially the first time a basic rule comes up, unless otherwise stated in the newer text.

For instance the players handbook has the rules on combat and character creation. it is the primary source for such things. So anyhting else that has rules on combat and character creation follows the same guidlines as in the playes handbook unless it specifically says it does not. If it's tryin gto say the same thing but somehow words it differently the wording in the PHB trumps.

For instance the errata is specifically meant to be a re-write on things in the PHB and thus trumps what's written in the PHB.

If you want the full discription you can download an errata sheet from the WOTC site. it has the text which explains this concept.

Ehh... when you say "nothing trumps Primary source", by which I assume you mean Core, that's only true when referring to general game rules such as conditions, combat rules, character creation, etc. However, if Complete Warrior had the feat Great Cleave with a different usage from the PHB version of Great Cleave, then the Complete Warrior version is the "official" one. I can't think of any examples of this, but there probably are. However, they should (and I think almost invariably do) explicitly state that something is overruling/replacing a previous version. One example is how there's a clarification of the Incorporeal subtype in Tome of Battle, which explicitly states that this is the new rules text for the Incorporeal subtype and overrides any previous rules text for the Incorporeal subtype.

[Emperor Tippy]

Ehh... when you say "nothing trumps Primary source", by which I assume you mean Core, that's only true when referring to general game rules such as conditions, combat rules, character creation, etc. However, if Complete Warrior had the feat Great Cleave with a different usage from the PHB version of Great Cleave, then the Complete Warrior version is the "official" one. I can't think of any examples of this, but there probably are. However, they should (and I think almost invariably do) explicitly state that something is overruling/replacing a previous version. One example is how there's a clarification of the Incorporeal subtype in Tome of Battle, which explicitly states that this is the new rules text for the Incorporeal subtype and overrides any previous rules text for the Incorporeal subtype.

Spell Compendium does it with spells. It redoes numerous spells.

[brian c]

Spell Compendium does it with spells. It redoes numerous spells.

Ah, okay. I knew there must be some sort of example, but I usually prefer melee characters, and I've only glanced at the Spell Compendium.

[CASTLEMIKE]

The RAW is the RAI - Rules as Written and Intended by Wizard's Gaming Professionals for DMs and Players to have FUN.

Professionals who have a product to sell and Occassionally and Purposefully IMO slip a few Game Straining Rule Gemstones, Feats, PRCs and Oversights into game play for customers who are familiar with the rules and mechanics of the game and wish to optimize their PC. This is understandable it is their business. Consistently year after year source book after source book it continues because we tend to forget that the PLAYER customers outnumber the DM customers marketshare wise and purchase more product.

Almost every player does this to some degree unless you routinely play a 63 point build commoner which comprises 90% of the populace and places a burden on your team you are optimizing your PC.

Some of these RAW RAI Gemstones can strain normal campaign play. They may be legally be utilized in games however most DM would not have much Fun or Enjoy the burden these Gemstones would place on his or her campaign world. So Wizard's formally left him or her an out Rule 0. The DM may Veto any Rule or Source book he wishes.

Just my thoughts on the subject.

[Dan_Hemmens]

The problem with this distinction (RAW vs RAI vs RAU vs whatever) is that for many people the subjective elements of the game are part of the system.

Clerics, for example, actually *are* supposed to be balanced somewhat by the roleplaying restrictions, they're part of the system just as much as their proficiencies.

[Matthew]

That's very true. However, the SRD has created the appearance of many 'fluff' aspects of the game being divorced from the mechanics. It's an (unanimated) skeleton without musculature.

[Jack Mann]

The other problem is that they do not enumerate what these restrictions might be. They don't give a code of conduct for clerics. They don't give the strictures for various churches. Because of this, the way these are dealt with will be different from game to game. You can't say, "Well, clerics of Pelor can't coup de grace their" as a general rule. Nothing in the text says that. It might make sense to you as a DM, but not everyone will use, or even have thought of that.

I agree that RAU is a useless term. While there are some problems that nearly all DMs try to fix, there are virtually no universal solutions.

RAI is useful only as a guideline, a method to look for fixes by looking at what the creators meant to do with the mechanics, where they screwed up, and fixing that. Even then, you might not agree with their intent, and may go with something else entirely.

In the end, there's only the RAW and house rules. House rules are useful, often necessary. But because they will be different between each group, they cannot be assumed.

[Indon]

In the end, there's only the RAW and house rules. House rules are useful, often necessary. But because they will be different between each group, they cannot be assumed.

And the thing is, if you don't discuss houserules on an equal footing (and in some extreme cases, as superior) to the RAW, you're often unable to discuss D&D to any significant (let alone useful) extent.

The number of players who play RAW-only games is pretty small, and the variety of houserules is immense. So unless a thread specifies that it is not discussing houserules (and is thus purely RAW/RAI), inclusion of houserules should be expected.

[Matthew]

Sure, but I don't think JackMann is saying "don't do it", he's saying "be clear when you are doing it".

[Indon]

Sure, but I don't think JackMann is saying "don't do it", he's saying "be clear when you are doing it".

After a review of the original post, I find myself agreeing with you.