The quoting of RAW as a trend

[Runestar]

I believe I am the reason why this thread even came into existence. However, it seems that the OP failed to give all of you the full picture, making it seem like he is trying to lash out at munchkins whose only purpose in dnd is to power-game a broken character by abusing the rules.

I can assure you that his motives as not as pure as he they appear to be. Let me elaborate on why I feel that RAW interpretations always had a place, and will continue to have a place in dnd, amongst other games.

Here is one of my posts from another thread.

there seems to be an interesting trend around here where posters apparently attempt to use "common sense" and "obviously intended to do XXX" to justify passing off their own houserules as RAW.

I can't and won't dictate how you would run your games, nor do I really care (simply because they are not my games), but I feel that however meaningful or reasonable a proposed alternate interpretation of the rules may be, it is ultimately a houserule, and ought to be recognized as such.

To me, the manner in which a thread such as this could be answered is actually very simple and straighforward. The OP asked if a dragonborn fighter could mark using his breath weapon. I feel the best solution would simply be to point out how the rules on combat challenge evidently support the PC being able to perform such a feat. However, the respondent could also go one step further by offering his own opinions on whether he feels that it is a good idea or not, as well as explaining why he feels it to be so, as well as any proposed solutions.

At the end of the day, how the OP wishes to run his game should entirely be up to him. All we can (and should, IMO) do is to simply allow him to make an informed decision, so that he knows what to expect and what he will be getting into by choosing to run/interpret the rules in a certain manner. RAW seems fairly clear-cut in this case. Intent less so.

You did fulfil the first 2 criteria by explaining why you felt that combat challenge ought not to apply to ranged AoE effects like dragon breath or scorching burst. However, I felt that you also came across as being too bossy and arrogant by essentially implying that your take was the "only right one there can be" and that any other interpretations contrary to yours automatically mean that the people behind them are somehow devoid of any common sense whatsoever.

In short, I see it as a form of personal attack, because what I perceive you as saying is in effect "You obviously lack common sense if you disagree with me". I agree that your take is one possible interpretation, but I do not agree that it is the only plausible one. Especially since I still stand by my own original explanation, and this incidentally, also stems from my own belief on how I feel combat challenge was intended to work (that yes, you can mark at range), and not simply because I enjoy being difficult or arguing with other posters for the sake of arguing.

When I say that the RAW allows for say, infinite damage via cascade of blades, I am not saying that a DM must allow it in his games just because the rules say so. He is certainly free to houserule otherwise to prevent such an abuse of the rules, but it must be borne in mind that a change ultimately remains just that - a houserule, nor does it change the fact that the rules do allow for such a combination, and this should be no replacement for the RAW if any rules-related discussion is to be a meaningful one.

Now, discuss.

 

[pemerton]

Sometimes the RAW is ambiguous. Most of the time it is not. It's just that the few ambiguous parts spawn thousands of ridiculous arguments on message boards like this one.

1) Rules as written - As discussed here, you can discussion what the words actually say. Sometimes the words are ambiguous, but often they are very clear. That leads into discussions about whether what is written makes sense, which gets combined with approach #2.

2) Rules as intended - Much more important in my view, this tends to get short shrift on some internet discussions.

It is a mistake to think that amibiguity (at least in a narrow sense of ambiguity) can be the only impediment to clear communication of the rules.

The person upthread who posted the link to The Million Dollar Comma had the right idea: the law has many more people working on it than RPG rules do, who are paid more, and who have a full-time staff of state functionaries (ie the judiciary) to help them - and interpretation in the law is nevertheless incredibly complex and difficult. It is just absurd to suppose that RPG rules of the complexity of D&D could avoid similar interpretive complexities.

An example that came up on a recent Hypersmurf thread was the meaning of "attack". In the Evasion feat, it seems to me highly plausible that "attack" is intended to mean "attack that just missed you, but would in any event have done damage to you did you not have this feat"; "damage" from such an attack would then be naturally read as the damage that would have been taken in the event of the miss. Whereas in Seal of Binding, "attack" probably means "any attack power", so that "not affected by any attack" probably means not affected by any attack power.

This is not about ambiguity - it is about determining the complex content that is intended to be carried by the noun- or verb-phrases in question, which in any natural language is nearly always more complex on any actual occasion of use than just the dictionary definition of a word. (This issue of determing content is linked to intentions, but not straightforwardly, because the grammatical rules of English generate significant conventional constraints on the meaning that any given phrase can be invested with, regardless of the writer's intention.)

 

[Kzach]

I believe I am the reason why this thread even came into existence.

ROFL

You give yourself WAY too much credit.

This is something I've been seeing and thinking about for several months.

 

[Leatherhead]

No, not at all. Typically the person claiming they are just following RAW are actually following their interpretation of the RAW, while the other person has a different interpretation. My point is that rules require interpretation, and in general claiming that RAW has meaning without interpretation is wrong.

I find this not to be the case. The post that generates a "that isn't RAW" response usually amounts to: "Yes, that is what the rule says to do, but that can't possibly be the intent of the rule, and using the rule as such is offensive to me in some way. I am going to change it (or I have already changed it) to suit my needs. Oh, and I have a disparaging view of anyone who does not agree with me." This kind of post seems more like someone trying to push an agenda than trying to help out. Of course I find this mostly, but not solely, on other boards. The cross-contamination of such things can't be helped from happening.

At the point someone invokes the "intent of the text" they are no longer interpreting the text itself, but the situations surrounding the text and it's creation. Normally this isn't strictly on topic to a discussion at hand, and as you can imagine, is an entirely different kind of mess to sort out.