The new spell identification rules are terrible.

[HolyDraconus]

I play and DM in AL. This change is stupid. It's a list of stupid that goes with lack of AL downtime day usage, since most in AL is banned.

[Tanarii]

I play and DM in AL. This change is stupid. It's a list of stupid that goes with lack of AL downtime day usage, since most in AL is banned.

How is adding something new that couldn't previously be done stupid? Or do you think the new thing that couldn't previously be done is a problem?

[Unoriginal]

I second this question.

[HolyDraconus]

It was previously DM choice.
"The thayan wizard casts a spell"
"I have counterspell ready but what spell?"
"Roll "....
That's how most DMs I see do it. There wasn't any hard rules for it so it came down to DM. Now, what I mentioned earlier is a straight up house rule, which in AL settings, aren't legal. And the headache this new way goes about things makes it imo not worth it. Hell, it's already a given in AL that you are supposed to make your char self sufficient (which is why melee chars this season are upset) but now spellcasters are being told "hey, that counterspell has to be blind, so there's no way of you knowing by yourself if the level you cast it at is enough". But like I said, it's a list of stupid. Like downtime days.

[Tanarii]

The new rule is retroactively proof that those DMs were Doing It Wrong (TM), and thus the rew rule is adding something that couldn't be done before.

Thanks for giving me the chance to use some good solid begging the question logic.

[Unoriginal]

It was previously DM choice.
"The thayan wizard casts a spell"
"I have counterspell ready but what spell?"
"Roll "....
That's how most DMs I see do it. There wasn't any hard rules for it so it came down to DM. Now, what I mentioned earlier is a straight up house rule, which in AL settings, aren't legal.

It was an house rule previously too.

Hell, it's already a given in AL that you are supposed to make your char self sufficient (which is why melee chars this season are upset)

Sorry, not sure what you mean by this.

[mgshamster]

Sorry, not sure what you mean by this.

Yeah, I'm confused, too. I DM and play a lot of AL, and while I certainly see some people build selfish characters, most players play within a team and try to work together as best they can.

[HolyDraconus]

The new rule is retroactively proof that those DMs were Doing It Wrong (TM), and thus the rew rule is adding something that couldn't be done before.

Thanks for giving me the chance to use some good solid begging the question logic.

... this is why I dislike posting an opinion on these parts of the boards. Veiled insults are still insults, and you sir, have only done that and given opinions. Unless given reason otherwise, I think it would behoof me to take everything you say as flippant nonsense.

It was an house rule previously too.



Sorry, not sure what you mean by this.

It was a DM adjudication, up til this book was released. What a DM did concerning this was on them, now, with clarity, comes a slew of headaches and mind games that I don't feel like it's remotely worth dealing with.

Yeah, I'm confused, too. I DM and play a lot of AL, and while I certainly see some people build selfish characters, most players play within a team and try to work together as best they can.

Maybe it's not as widespread as I thought, which is fine. Generally from what I have seen, players built chars with the express idea that they have ZERO idea who they will be playing with next week. As such, they make chars that can function without needing a specific character or thing.


Course, this season happened. Never seen so many players skip a season of AL.

[Tanarii]

... this is why I dislike posting an opinion on these parts of the boards. Veiled insults are still insults, and you sir, have only done that and given opinions. Unless given reason otherwise, I think it would behoof me to take everything you say as flippant nonsense.

If you can't tell when I poking fun at my own 'logic', and instead feel the need to read some kind of veiled insult into it, that's your problem, not mine.

[Breashios]

Yes. That's correct.
But adding/creating rules that do not exist in the published rules and errata? Those are indeed different from the published rules and errata, and as such still fall under your own definition of House Rules.

So I had the weekend to think about this and a game session with the group I DM. I guess this is my problem put more clearly - When someone says they want a game that is RAW only, how can that be provided if making a ruling becomes a House Rule? Everyone agrees that the rules do not cover everything.

The first time you make a ruling that will fill that void for the rest of that campaign, you are no longer playing RAW by your definition.

Either RAW include rulings (as I believe, they are just different for each table and expected to be by "everyone", since that hypothetical "everyone" knows the rules don't cover it) or there is no such thing as a RAW only game.

All I need to fix this is the acronym for the game that is RAW + rulings to fill the voids left by the rules. Then I can begin using that to describe the type of campaign our group plays and everyone can be happy.

Any suggestions?

[DivisibleByZero]

So I had the weekend to think about this and a game session with the group I DM. I guess this is my problem put more clearly - When someone says they want a game that is RAW only, how can that be provided if making a ruling becomes a House Rule?
<snip>
Any suggestions?

There is no such thing as RAW only.
There never has been. Not in DnD5e, not in D&D4e, not in D&D3e, not in AD&D2e, not in OD&D.
You can play a game as closely adhering to RAW as possible, but no matter what, and no matter the edition, eventually you're going to have to deviate from the RAW in some fashion.
The only suggestion that I have is to evaluate what you and your table personally consider to be an acceptable deviation, and run with it. Which is precisely what you seem to have done, so you're good to go.

[Cybren]

It was previously DM choice.
"The thayan wizard casts a spell"
"I have counterspell ready but what spell?"
"Roll "....
That's how most DMs I see do it. There wasn't any hard rules for it so it came down to DM. Now, what I mentioned earlier is a straight up house rule, which in AL settings, aren't legal. And the headache this new way goes about things makes it imo not worth it. Hell, it's already a given in AL that you are supposed to make your char self sufficient (which is why melee chars this season are upset) but now spellcasters are being told "hey, that counterspell has to be blind, so there's no way of you knowing by yourself if the level you cast it at is enough". But like I said, it's a list of stupid. Like downtime days.

The DM is still free to do it. The DM could say "he's got sorcerer spellcasting and you're a sorcerer who knows this spell it's _". The DM could say "make a perception check to notice what component's he's using and if it's on your spell list i'll give it to you". The rule doesn't preclude those things, because the purpose of the rule is to allow people to identify any spell being cast rather than recognize some smaller subset of spells you might know. For example, if a wizard cast shatter three times in a row, your DM might say "you know he's doing the exact same spell".

[Easy_Lee]

DMs are free to do as they like, but most DMs follow published rules most of the time. Since we now have rules saying how to identify a spell, we can expect most DMs to follow those rules whether they're good rules or not.

[LeonBH]

As you said, Breashios, everyone knows the rules have gaps. They do not cover everything.

Therefore, you cannot have an exclusively RAW game. How can you, when not every rule is spelled out?

What you can have is a game that sticks to the RAW as much as possible. That means monsters do not get to grapple as reactions, bonus actions are not used unless a specific feature provides a bonus action, spells are followed to the letter, etc.

Consider this simple gap in the rules: Levitate will safely float you to the ground if you lose the spell while in the air. But unlike feather fall, no speed is specified. There is literally no RAW way for us to tell how fast the caster falls, so anything we rule will form a house rule if you consistently rule the same way moving forward.

If you're looking for a name for it... Perhaps you can say you are running a campaign that has a high fidelity to RAW. A high RAW fidelity game.

[Breashios]

As you said, Breashios, everyone knows the rules have gaps. They do not cover everything.

Therefore, you cannot have an exclusively RAW game. How can you, when not every rule is spelled out?
<snip>
If you're looking for a name for it... Perhaps you can say you are running a campaign that has a high fidelity to RAW. A high RAW fidelity game.

Thank you for your answer. I now clearly understand the pure definition of RAW. What I did not understand was this forum’s inability to understand my usage of RAW as from “common usage”.

What I mean to say is if I go to any of my local gaming stores and offer a game on one of their boards and put “DnD 5e RAW”, everyone will know what I mean. They will know I mean I am running a high RAW fidelity game. If I also further clarify that there are no house rules, they will know by default what I mean is no rulings that contradict RAW. Only the most pedantic individual will be confused about how I could be offering a RAW game without house rules to fill the voids they know about. If it is different in other communities, I will be somewhat surprised.

[Tanarii]

What I mean to say is if I go to any of my local gaming stores and offer a game on one of their boards and put “DnD 5e RAW”, everyone will know what I mean. They will know I mean I am running a high RAW fidelity game. If I also further clarify that there are no house rules, they will know by default what I mean is no rulings that contradict RAW. Only the most pedantic individual will be confused about how I could be offering a RAW game without house rules to fill the voids they know about. If it is different in other communities, I will be somewhat surprised.

That's exactly what RAW means. "Rules as Written". I you say your game is RAW, you mean you aren't making house-rules, which are rules that contradict RAW.

Filling in the gaps missing in RAW is not house-rules. That's rulings, and 5e is intentionally designed to require many of them.

[DivisibleByZero]

That's exactly what RAW means. "Rules as Written". I you say your game is RAW, you mean you aren't making house-rules, which are rules that contradict RAW.

Filling in the gaps missing in RAW is not house-rules. That's rulings, and 5e is intentionally designed to require many of them.

Whether it's House Rules or Rulings falls to semantics in the grand scheme of things.
Is it written?
If yes, it is RAW.
If no, it is not RAW.
Rulings are supported by RAW, but they are not RAW themselves.

[Cybren]

DMs are free to do as they like, but most DMs follow published rules most of the time. Since we now have rules saying how to identify a spell, we can expect most DMs to follow those rules whether they're good rules or not.

That's only true of most DMs if your definition of "most DMs" are "people posting on D&D forums"

[Tanarii]

That's only true of most DMs if your definition of "most DMs" are "people posting on D&D forums"

Even that doesn't seem accurate to me. From what I've seen, forum DMs usually huge list of house-rules, where they are actively changing RAW to something else.

I'd hazard that "most official play DMs" attempt to hew closely to RAW. It's definitely not ALL official play DMs though.

[JackPhoenix]

Only way to have purely RAW game is to play a videogame where you have hard limits on possible actions. It is not possible in tabletop RPG unless you run incredibly boring game (or wargame instead of proper RPG) where you can't do anything outside pre-defined set of actions.

[Coffee_Dragon]

On the subject of whether a new optional rule constitutes a change or not, consider feats. The Actor feat permits (among other things) a player to mimic the voice of another person, and provides a resolution mechanism for this. Do you reckon there would be any difference in how a request to mimic the voice of another person would be regarded between:

a) a table where feats are unknown, and

b) a table where feats are known but unused?

(I'm assuming a consensus that a character without the Actor feat is strictly worse off at the c) table where feats are in use, since at best Actor would effectively put a cap on their ability, and at worst they would be shot down entirely.)

[Tanarii]

Only way to have purely RAW game is to play a videogame where you have hard limits on possible actions. It is not possible in tabletop RPG unless you run incredibly boring game (or wargame instead of proper RPG) where you can't do anything outside pre-defined set of actions.

It's easy. All you do is not intentionally change the written rules with house-rules.

Edit: Okay, that's not that easy, because it's mighty tempting to do just that.

[Easy_Lee]

It's easy. All you do is not intentionally change the written rules with house-rules.

Edit: Okay, that's not that easy, because it's mighty tempting to do just that.

I've found this to be easier on players, generally. Memorizing pages of house rules is not easy, nor something all players are willing to do. And in my experience, most DMs follow most RAW most of the time. Everyone changes, ignores, or forgets something, but few DMs change most of the rules.

Therefore, one can generally assume an unspecified DM follows a given rule as written until there is evidence to the contrary.

[Knaight]

Even that doesn't seem accurate to me. From what I've seen, forum DMs usually huge list of house-rules, where they are actively changing RAW to something else.

I suspect it's a matter of differences in how the game is discussed/analyzed/whatever and how it's actually played. In the former case the whole idea of a shared RAW as a shared basis of discussion has some value, which quickly gets jettisoned in the latter.

[Cybren]

I've found this to be easier on players, generally. Memorizing pages of house rules is not easy, nor something all players are willing to do. And in my experience, most DMs follow most RAW most of the time. Everyone changes, ignores, or forgets something, but few DMs change most of the rules.

Therefore, one can generally assume an unspecified DM follows a given rule as written until there is evidence to the contrary.

Most players don't actually internalize the rules all that much. They know how to play generally, they have rules they don't use often explained to them by Pete, and when the DM just makes something up on the spot they don't really think about it.

Pete is the guy that goes on all the D&D forums and buys every supplement. There's also NegaPete, who is the dark kermit meme version of Pete.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I suspect it's a matter of differences in how the game is discussed/analyzed/whatever and how it's actually played. In the former case the whole idea of a shared RAW as a shared basis of discussion has some value, which quickly gets jettisoned in the latter.

I find that RAW really doesn't have that much power in any case. In principle, yes. In practice, citations of RAW tend to be used as weapons to support a particular point of view that only loosely depends on the actual text.

Rules break down to a few cases--

a) clear and obvious. Here, the text is so clear that everyone agrees and there's no questions except through ignorance.
b) multiple valid interpretations. Here, the text can reasonably be interpreted/applied in several ways. In 5e, those tend to be "the DM decides." Discussing these is a matter of taste (which do we prefer), not a matter of rule.
c) no clear interpretations that work. Here, no one agrees what the text is actually saying or the facial reading is garbage (internally inconsistent). We either make rulings (like case b) or ignore the issue entirely.
d) A clear interpretation that no one likes. 3.5e grappling rules. These tend to get houseruled away real fast at most tables.

In none of these cases is RAW controlling except the first, when things are crystal clear anyway. So it's the only case for discussion where RAW really helps. THe others are choosing between competing interpretations once RAW is already taken into account.

But that's me. YMMV.

[Knaight]

Most players don't actually internalize the rules all that much. They know how to play generally, they have rules they don't use often explained to them by Pete, and when the DM just makes something up on the spot they don't really think about it.

Pete is the guy that goes on all the D&D forums and buys every supplement. There's also NegaPete, who is the dark kermit meme version of Pete.

Also there's a pretty good chance that Pete is the DM.

[LeonBH]

Thank you for your answer. I now clearly understand the pure definition of RAW. What I did not understand was this forum’s inability to understand my usage of RAW as from “common usage”.

What I mean to say is if I go to any of my local gaming stores and offer a game on one of their boards and put “DnD 5e RAW”, everyone will know what I mean. They will know I mean I am running a high RAW fidelity game. If I also further clarify that there are no house rules, they will know by default what I mean is no rulings that contradict RAW. Only the most pedantic individual will be confused about how I could be offering a RAW game without house rules to fill the voids they know about. If it is different in other communities, I will be somewhat surprised.

You're welcome. Glad we could clarify that. I personally prefer high RAW fidelity as well when I DM (much less rules to make up, it's easier that way), so maybe that contributed to my better understanding of your question.

And tbh, it's easier as a player when I know the DM sticks to RAW since then I know what I'll be up against.

[JimmyHoffa69]

registered to bitch about this.

my problem is not necessarily that you have to identify the spell, but if its an arcana check then warlocks and sorcerers (my PC atm) are nerfed because that isn't how their magic works. You'd think a person with a powerful intuitive knowledge of magic would be able to block spells the same way they cast them. It seems like this ruling wasn't thought through very well.

[DivisibleByZero]

registered to bitch about this.

my problem is not necessarily that you have to identify the spell, but if its an arcana check then warlocks and sorcerers (my PC atm) are nerfed because that isn't how their magic works. You'd think a person with a powerful intuitive knowledge of magic would be able to block spells the same way they cast them. It seems like this ruling wasn't thought through very well.

I disagree with this completely.

Wizard: I study the flow of the weave so as to understand it, and then bend it to my will. Magical Theory is where I excel.
Sorcerer: Magic is in my blood. It's so ingrained in me that I can bend it in ways that others cannot. But I fly by the seat of my pants and have very limited exposure to anything other than what I know. Magical Theory usually takes a back seat.
Warlock: I made a deal with some dude and his power lets me cast spells. Magical Theory might not even be in my vocabulary.

The first is obviously going to be much better equipped in understanding what he sees happening, and therefore will also be better equipped to figure out how to stop it.
They are all equally equipped at actually stopping it from happening (counterspell), but generally speaking the first is clearly going to be better at understanding what he sees (arcana).