D&D 5E Do you Consider Flavor Text to be part of Raw?

[Rod Staffwand]

I picked Lemon Curry, since a nonsensical answer is the best fit to a question that is completely antithetical to how I view the game.

I don't much care for RAW/RAI analysis. It is far more useful to view RPG systems as guidelines or toolboxes rather than iron-clad strictures that shall not be questioned.

As for fluff, I kind of view it as the sample picture you get when you buy a picture frame--nice...but nothing to do with me.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

That poison is illegal and would only be used by evil characters is as RAW as it dealing d4 damage with a Con (10) save to negate. Both of those are easily changed, if I feel like it.

I may be more inclined to deviate on the former point, given that it's less likely to have unforeseen interactions with other parts of the system, but they're both equally RAW.

 

[delericho]

In general, I prefer it if the rules text and the flavour text are nicely delineated (as is usually, though not always the case, in 3e). In which case, the flavour text is just that, and not RAW.

For 5e, I fully intend to focus a whole lot less on the minutae of RAW, and as such intend to bypass this question entirely.

 

[Paraxis]

That poison is illegal and would only be used by evil characters is as RAW as it dealing d4 damage with a Con (10) save to negate. Both of those are easily changed, if I feel like it.

I may be more inclined to deviate on the former point, given that it's less likely to have unforeseen interactions with other parts of the system, but they're both equally RAW.

Where are you seeing the fluff about it being illegal and only usable by evil characters?

 

[aramis erak]

I count them as part of RAW, but of lesser value than the rules mechanics themselves.

 

[Wolfskin]

I consider FAW (fluff-as-written) useful so that all players are on the same page from the outset and know what to expect of the game in advance, nothing more. If I deviate a lot, I'll let the players know in advance.

 

[Blue]

I have no problems reskinning and reflavoring as either player or DM, so not I don't stick to fluff. It's not expected to fit all possible worlds.

 

[Iosue]

Well, there's flavor text and there's fluff.

In 4e, I eventually ignored the power flavor text for whatever I made up myself, because the flavor text was explicitly separate from the mechanics.
In 5e and TSR-D&D, the mechanics are an expression of the flavor text (in fact, it's not really "flavor text" as much as non-mechanical description), so the description is important. That said, I'll happily re-use mechanics to represent other actions. E.g., using a "Save vs. Wands" to avoid some kind of arrow/dart-shooting trap.

As far monster descriptions and ecologies, that's all fluff, and I'll freely ignore it if I'm homebrewing.

 

[Paraxis]

A good example is the phantasmal killer spell, the fluff says it taps into the nightmares of the creature, elves don't dream like most creatures they go through mental exercises while they trance, I doubt warforged will dream when we have rules for them. I would never ever for a second consider making either race immune to the spell phantasmal killer, because of that bit of fluff.

The mechanics are make a save or be frightened, so the only thing that makes you immune to this spell is being immune to the frightened condition.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I say Fluff is important. Because most of the things you do in an RPG is fluff.

So I consider burning hands gestures and description as much RAW as it being a cone of fire. It actually is a fan that is only cone shaped in one dimension. Gives it quite a bit utility, bein able to aim over small allies and such...