D&D 5E Does RAW have a place in 5e?

[Mistwell]

Without rules as written the PHB would just be a picture book.

Or it would be full of advice, guidelines, and highly interesting descriptions of the setting and types of challenges and examples of ways to explore the world and overcome challenges. You know, like a handbook. For players.

 

[Siberys]

I am very late to this thread, so apologies if I'm covering already-thoroughly-tread ground;

RAW is exceptionally important. Without it, I have to resort to continuously asking my GM questions just to make a character, let alone play.

I've been playing a lot of Pathfinder lately. I've repeatedly found myself asking the GM inane questions that were nevertheless important for character building. Most of the questions were, at their heart, "This is how it works RAW, but I know GMs rule this differently in their home games, or ignore this or that rule. I need to ask about this or I will create a bad experience down the road either for myself or for the GM." The rules are intentionally fuzzy, and it causes me no end of problems. And I at least have direct access to my GMs! Suppose I were playing PFS - how would I deal with those situations? Make a call and then not enjoy myself when a GM I've otherwise never met rules against me?

Keep in mind, I'm talking about largely trivial things - for example, the Cestus in Pathfinder has the following rules text;

When using a cestus, your fingers are mostly exposed, allowing you to wield or carry items in that hand, but the constriction of the weapon at your knuckles gives you a –2 penalty on all precision-based tasks involving that hand (such as opening locks).

What is a "precision-based task" - a skill check? Ranged attacks? Do Sneak Attacks or casting spells count? RAW it only seems - to me, mind - like it'd apply to skill checks, but it's arguable. RAI is totally unclear, and if I had to rely on that I'd just end up choosing something else.

In short, working off of RAI is poor design, because it leads to situations like the one above, where fuzzy "natural" wording that tries to leave room for interpretation instead makes that interpretation necessary.

 

[Minigiant]

And my, ultimately minor, tweak would be "I tend to at least be familiar with the spells and feats a character actually uses". See my previous comments about my tiredness and poor D&D play.

And, fair or not, Dragon death would probably get used at my table first. Then I'd take a look at it and say, "no". But, thinking about it, most of my players would come and ask me about it ahead of time. None of them is trying to break the game. Or, if they are, they're either really good or really bad at it.

Thaumaturge.

I tend to prefer the game to not rely on players being overly nice.

My cousin Ty isn't one to purpose. But if I tell him that the dragon is the BBEG and the PHB or another allowed book has a Dragon Death spell, he will prepare or learn it. Most players will.

But he won't ask if it is okay. He'll simply assume it is okay since you allowed the book it came from and said nothing. And hell be angry and call you a lazy bum if you say no when he casts it on the dragon baddy.

And I seen many like Ty. Many players who believe the DM is supposed to know everything because the DM is given final say. My friend Jack was pretty bad about this and I am glad I don't DM for him anymore.

 

[billd91]

What is a "precision-based task" - a skill check? Ranged attacks? Do Sneak Attacks or casting spells count? RAW it only seems - to me, mind - like it'd apply to skill checks, but it's arguable. RAI is totally unclear, and if I had to rely on that I'd just end up choosing something else.

In short, working off of RAI is poor design, because it leads to situations like the one above, where fuzzy "natural" wording that tries to leave room for interpretation instead makes that interpretation necessary.

But you are also highlighting a problem with RAW here as well. Even if the cestus description included a broader list of "precision-based tasks", would it be complete? Almost certainly not, which just takes us back to RAI anyway. Would it be worth the extra description to include more tasks or to highlight specific exceptions? Maybe, but that would also tend toward very cumbersome rules that would be even harder to edit and maintain consistently. In many ways, it really is best to consult with your GMs and engage them in the PC-building process. Not only will they be prepared to understand the rules you're incorporating into your character's build, they'll be able to head off builds that will be undermined by their own game-running styles.

 

[Mistwell]

Mearls gave the reason for why they sometimes use a broad set of principals as guidelines for a DM to adjudicate a type of challenge, like sneaking.

A lot of responses in this thread however are just a lot of repetition about how clarity is useful.

We know clarity is useful. However, is it MORE useful than the reasons he gave?

Again, from the Escapist Magazine interview from August 21, 2014.

Interviewer: "Do you have any other examples of what you think of as the DM’s power and responsibility?"

Mike Mealrs: "Our rules for stealth, which may sound like a funny example. But having worked on 3rd and 4th edition, creating a set of rules for hiding from other people and monsters that run without a DM, is crazy. You always end up with a situation where you’re standing right in front of the monster but he can’t see you, because there’s a loophole in the rules."

"So we just came out and said you know what, let the DM decide. We’re going to tell you the mechanic and just say, look DM, does it make sense that a player can hide in this situation? If so, let the player make the check. If not, don’t let him make the check. If maybe, then maybe advantage or disadvantage, that covers the middle ground."

"There is this funny thing that happens, and stealth is a good example of this. If you want to make a rule that is DM-proof, you end up with a rule that when humans try to read it, it just seems really weird. It’s like the old Carl Sagan quote from Cosmos, “If you want to create an apple pie, you must first create the universe.” I just want to make an apple pie, why are you describing how to make a black hole? Because this is way beyond what I need. So the rules just take on this tone where it doesn't seem like what’s actually happening at the table."

"Instead when you rely on the DM, it’s more the human element, and the rules just seem sensible. You can hide, when people can’t see you. Of course, if someone can see me, then how can I hide? It just seems like common sense. Where, when you’re like, use the grid, and here’s the different gradations of cover, it ends up introducing all this jargon. We can take the simplest concept, like trying to hide, and turn it into something which looks completely alien to someone just reading it."

 

[Thaumaturge]

I tend to prefer the game to not rely on players being overly nice.

I wouldn't say I rely upon it, either. My current group just happens to be comprised of people who are nice. My whole table is, I think, tired of having to worry about every "-2 to precise tasks" that crops up. We work together to make sure no one's wrecking the table.

Oh goodness. Now I sound like [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION].

My cousin Ty isn't one to purpose. But if I tell him that the dragon is the BBEG and the PHB or another allowed book has a Dragon Death spell, he will prepare or learn it. Most players will.

But he won't ask if it is okay. He'll simply assume it is okay since you allowed the book it came from and said nothing. And hell be angry and call you a lazy bum if you say no when he casts it on the dragon baddy.

I thought about clarifying above that I would let the spell work the first time it's cast, because taking it away in that moment feels pretty crappy for everyone. Maybe he didn't cast a different spell when it really would have helped because he was holding on to dragon death. Yeah. I'd let it happen, and then talk between sessions. And I'd take my lumps. I have before and will again.

And I seen many like Ty. Many players who believe the DM is supposed to know everything because the DM is given final say. My friend Jack was pretty bad about this and I am glad I don't DM for him anymore.

I've gamed with, and been, many a "Ty". I understand what you mean.

And, to reiterate, you're probably doing things right. I'm just too tired to do things that way anymore. Fortunately, I have a table that seems to be in step with me.

Thaumaturge.

 

[billd91]

It's a DC 20 check, so he made it by 7. By denying the check, you have effectively changed the rules of the game, and made Tracking and Survival much less valuable. This is not even a "Mr. Awesome can't be tracked"; this is a full-on nerf of the tracking rules.

Unless, of course, you also assume that this is a busy cobblestone street with the sign of any particular smith's passing being continually obscured by other passersby, in which case the DC 20 would be far too low.

But in any event, adjusting the rules to fit the situations present is something GMs do. If something really should be not doable with the means the PC is trying to do them, it's not doable no matter what the roll.

 

[prosfilaes]

My cousin Ty isn't one to purpose. But if I tell him that the dragon is the BBEG and the PHB or another allowed book has a Dragon Death spell, he will prepare or learn it. Most players will.

That's because virtually all mages would. It doesn't take much wisdom at all to know that when going against dragons, you prepare anti-dragon magic.

But he won't ask if it is okay. He'll simply assume it is okay since you allowed the book it came from and said nothing. And hell be angry and call you a lazy bum if you say no when he casts it on the dragon baddy.

I don't condone the abuse, but what do you want? If you want me to run everything past you, I will happily submit my character after each change. But I can't read your mind and know which things you will object to. If you don't want to do the labor of reading everything in the books you allow, or reading every character change, then you bear some of the responsibility for the problem.

 

[Thaumaturge]

If you don't want to do the labor of reading everything in the books you allow, or reading every character change, then you bear some of the responsibility for the problem.

I think [MENTION=63508]Minigiant[/MENTION] agrees with you.

I do, too, though I'm the one taking the "I'm not reading every spell" position.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Siberys]

But you are also highlighting a problem with RAW here as well. Even if the cestus description included a broader list of "precision-based tasks", would it be complete? Almost certainly not, which just takes us back to RAI anyway. Would it be worth the extra description to include more tasks or to highlight specific exceptions? Maybe, but that would also tend toward very cumbersome rules that would be even harder to edit and maintain consistently. In many ways, it really is best to consult with your GMs and engage them in the PC-building process. Not only will they be prepared to understand the rules you're incorporating into your character's build, they'll be able to head off builds that will be undermined by their own game-running styles.

At that point, though, it's clearly a case of DM fiat instead of a game design bit. The discussion changes from "I can't tell how this is supposed to be resolved" to "I think this should be resolved differently."

For example; several years ago, I joined a D&D 3.5 game. I built a duelist character, and a lot of 3.5's duelist-themed options revolved around AoOs, so I chose them. When I got to the table, the GM ignored AoOs - the only time I got one off, I had to ask about it, and he hemmed and hawed for a bit before allowing it. That was a poor experience, yes, but once I realized how the GM ran things I rebuilt my character and the game was otherwise very fun.

The problem there was not one with AoOs, or with the character options I selected. Those would have operated just fine, with little to no ambiguity. The problem arose because I didn't know the GM would ignore a portion of the rules. The game designers can't be held responsible for that decision. Game designers can be held responsible for stuff like the cestus, though - like I said, there's a difference between leaving room for interpretation and requiring it.

EDIT: To clarify, suppose the cestus had said "...you take a -2 penalty to Dex-based skill checks." That's miles clearer and doesn't have any ambiguity at all. Are you wearing a cestus and attempting a dex-based skill check? -2 penalty. Clear, simple, not loaded down with exceptions. If the GM thought that didn't make sense ("That shouldn't reduce your Ride check," or "It's hard to hold that dagger with those bulky boxing gloves, take -2 to your sneak attack roll."), they could change it, but then it's an optional houserule instead of a necessary ruling.