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

[Elf Witch]

After thinking about this I realize I have a split personality on this as a player I prefer RAW as a DM I prefer RAI.

I guess part of it for me is I have experiences with DMs who make changes not understanding why a rule is written in a certain way and then the game goes bad because of it. Like allowing warlocks to use two weapon fighting to cast more eldritch blasts a round which meant he was casting four every round. It over powered his character and totally ended up frustrating the DM whose solution was to bring on more powerful monsters that ended up kicking the rest of us in the teeth.

I also get frustrated if I have to go to the DM for every little thing about my character and there is nothing more aggravating than planning your move and having the DM say no that does work because he on the spot has changed how a rule was written.

When I DM I tend to look at the RAW first then make changes that I discuss ahead of time. If a rule is unclear during play I make a ruling and we talk about it after the game. I also keep note of things like that in my house rule book.

I think newbie DMs do well with a game with a good well written rule system. I think it leads to less frustrations as they learn the game.

So I guess yes there is room for RAW in 5E but there is also room for RAI.

And I am calling a huge BS on saying that you can't role play with RAW.

I played a lot of AD&D and I have no desire to go back to it. I was ready for a rule change I was sick of the arguments over no that spell couldn't hit me because that is not where I was standing or the DM saying no you didn't sneak into the orc camp unnoticed or no you didn't noticed them sneaking into your camp.

I have not had a major look yet at 5E but from what i have seen it does not seem that there is no RAW in it.

I am big believer that a well written rule system is the base for a good game that it actually helps both player and DMs and helps with RAI.

 

[Emerikol]

The CR system is specifically meant to not be a solid hard and fast rule, but to function as guidelines for the DM to eyeball and adjust. For example, from the Basuc rules, the CR rules are repeatedly called "guidelines". It uses language such as, "according to the needs of your story and the logic of your adventure setting" and "estimate" and "advice in this section" and "Challenge rating is only a guidepost" and "Simple guide" and "Depending on the circumstances and resources available to the party". It describes the rules in descriptors such as "Probably" and "should", not firm claims like "will" and "must". It tells you that once you have a feel for things, "From there, you can adjust", and gives helpful advice depending on "typical adventuring conditions and average luck" and describes the rules as a "rough estimate".

That seems like the epitome of what you called "intentionally to include DM adjudication". All of the language tells you that's what it is about, and that it is not meant to be a rules as written type of sub-system.

The CR system is definitely not a bad system in 5e, it just admits what we've all known for decades - challenging a particular party in any given set of circumstances requires DM intervention. It requires a DM to know their group, understand how challenges work with that group, and adjust based on that party, and those circumstances. It will be more of an art than a science. No rules will ever fix this robotically, and a computer can never accurately make this judgement call (until Artificial Intelligence is invented) because the parties and circumstances have so much variation that it would be a hopeless task to try and write rules that would address every situation and group that could come up.

The rules are up front about this, and don't pretend the CR system can be used without adjudication. The purpose is to serve as advice and guidelines and rough estimates, and then the DM takes it from there. That's the rules functioning well, not poorly, because of the nature of those types of rules.

I just used the CR system as an example and you immediately thought I was attacking the 5e CR system. I am not. I just said that some rules really can be poorly written and even if the DM can fix them that doesn't make them good rules. That is the start and end of the Oberoni Fallacy. I am totally sympathetic that too many around here are constantly bending it to their own aims but that does not make the Fallacy invalid.

 

[Mistwell]

I just used the CR system as an example and you immediately thought I was attacking the 5e CR system. I am not.

Well yes, you used the CR system as an example of a flawed system, and so I responded to the example. Is there no actual example you have in mind to demonstrate the fallacy is applicable to 5e? If not, what is the point of raising a fallacy that has no applicability to the thing we're discussing?

 

[Emerikol]

You're conflating benevolent with good. There are many benevolent DMs who can't keep their rulings straight from one minute to the next. There are many benevolent DMs who will errata the rules in the middle of the game. There's a lot of bad benevolent DMs.

So in the case of a good hearted but incompetent DM, there are two possible approaches. The DM is more likely to accept off the cuff comments about adjudication when he is learning and brief remarks to that affect are fine. We are though in this case talking about rulings based on "how reality is viewed" and that is a contentious subject. Most DMs are not going to complain if you say that so and so gets a save normally. They may though if you start arguing about when stealth is possible or not. It's best to let DMs rule the way they think reality works in their campaign and the players then learn that DMs basic viewpoint. We are talking about ambiguous judgment calls and not clear and obvious rules.

Not only that, in any form of human endeavor, there needs to be space between perfect and just quit. There needs to be space for players to talk to DMs instead of just quiting whenever something doesn't work for them.

Again you are ignoring what I am talking about. I'm specifically focused on rulings based upon the DM's perception of reality. That perception enables him to make judgment calls. If his perception is different from the players then at first they will have some disagreements. If though the DM is consistent and fair in his administration of these judgments the players should ultimately just accept the DM's rulings. Any DM that allows his campaign to be ruled by committee is not a DM I'd ever want to go near.

So trying to work with the players to have an established set of rules that everyone understands is the DM being restrained by the rules?

Some people really do have this misguided notion that a "bad" as in "evil" DM can be engaged if the rules are sufficiently tight so as to force good behavior. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

You've sat here and told players there's one true way to play; you are actively getting in the way of anyone who wants to have a different style of game, where players can discuss rules and the DM does accept that the rules need to clear up front.

I'm for as much up front clarity as possible. That still leaves a vast set of things that no rules can possibly cover. I'm not saying the DM should randomly switch how many dice your fireball gets. We are talking about cases where the DM has to make a judgment call. I'm saying those cases should be defined primarily by the DM in his campaign.

 

[Emerikol]

Well yes, you used the CR system as an example of a flawed system, and so I responded to the example. Is there no actual example you have in mind to demonstrate the fallacy is applicable to 5e? If not, what is the point of raising a fallacy that has no applicability to the thing we're discussing?

You attacked the Oberoni Fallacy as invalid on it's face. I am totally sympathetic to 5e's rules approach. I had to respond though because you were basically throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is nothing wrong with the Oberoni Fallacy and it fits where appropriate. It is a genuine fallacy. I just made up an example of two cases where it would apply and wouldn't apply as a means of illustration. I am not even in this discussion otherwise.

I have the Oberoni Fallacy incorrectly applied against me all the time. That does not make me hate the Oberoni Fallacy. That is like saying I hate logic. I may hate the twisting of logic but I don't hate logic.

 

[Dausuul]

Both responses are the same response, phrased in a different way, with one offering expanded explanation. The rule was intentionally left to interpretation. So the response of "The DM can interpret the rule, so it's not a problem" is accurate and not flawed - you described that the rule was left open to interpretation, and that reasonable interpretations are available to deal with the issue that arose, so it ends up not being a problem. You can go into more detail on why the rule was left to interpretation, and that is the first answer. But that's just expanding on the response - the response is not flawed without the expanded answer.

The response is not only flawed without the expanded answer, it isn't even an answer! The person complaining certainly knows that the DM can interpret the rules--this is ENWorld, not Role-Playing Games 101. But interpreting rules is work, imposing a cost (however small) in time and cognitive effort. You need to provide a reason why that work is worth doing or you aren't answering the complaint.

The exact same Oberoni response could be applied to any complaint of poor writing and ambiguity in the rules. If it is sufficient to respond to such complaints with "The DM can interpret the rules, so there isn't a problem," that means there cannot ever be a problem with poorly written ambiguous rules--even in cases where that ambiguity is not in fact speeding up play or reducing rules-lawyering.

As an example of the latter, I'll put out 5E magic missile and the Empowered Evocation ability (which adds your Int modifier to the damage roll of any evocation spell you cast). The way Empowered Evocation is written, it's not clear if you add Int mod to the damage of every missile, or once per target, or once for the whole spell. This is not an area where the DM has value to add by adjudicating on a case-by-case basis. Nor is it an obscure corner case; magic missile is a favorite low-level damage spell, and a generous reading of Empowered Evocation can increase its damage output by almost two-thirds compared to a narrow reading. Nor would it require a half column of jargon to clarify what it means. This really is just an ambiguous, poorly-written rule.

But the DM can interpret it, so it's not a problem.

But that's not the context we were discussing. You said, "Whenever RAI (Rules as Intended) arguments come up, they sometimes stray into Oberoni Fallacy territory."

No, I didn't. Someone else said that. You and I were discussing your claim that there was something wrong with the concept of the Oberoni fallacy. The phrase "Oberoni fallacy" was invented during the 3E period, so a 3E example seemed appropriate.

 

[Mr Fixit]

As an example of the latter, I'll put out 5E magic missile and the Empowered Evocation ability (which adds your Int modifier to the damage roll of any evocation spell you cast). The way Empowered Evocation is written, it's not clear if you add Int mod to the damage of every missile, or once per target, or once for the whole spell. This is not an area where the DM has value to add by adjudicating on a case-by-case basis. Nor is it an obscure corner case; magic missile is a favorite low-level damage spell, and a generous reading of Empowered Evocation can increase its damage output by almost two-thirds. Nor would it require a half column of jargon to clarify what it means. This really is just an ambiguous, poorly-written rule.

I don't get the supposed ambiguity. In my view it is obvious the rule says that you apply your Int modifier to the roll. If INT is 16, you add +3 to whatever total you rolled. Yeah, it could be a bit problematic assigning this bonus damage to multiple targets, but there's no reason you couldn't do it however you wanted, if you stayed within the +3. Why would you interpret it any differently?

 

[Dausuul]

I don't get the supposed ambiguity. In my view it is obvious the rule says that you apply your Int modifier to the roll. If INT is 16, you add +3 to whatever total you rolled. Yeah, it could be a bit problematic assigning this bonus damage to multiple targets, but there's no reason you couldn't do it however you wanted, if you stayed within the +3. Why would you interpret it any differently?

If I cast magic missile and aim at three different targets, I am rolling 1d4+1 damage for each. The ability says I add my Int mod to "the damage roll" of any evocation spell of 1st level or above. Here, I've got three damage rolls. Does the bonus apply to just one of those rolls? Or does it apply to each of the three? Or does it apply once but I can split it up? And if it applies to each of the three, what happens if I cast it again and focus fire on a single target? Does that constitute three rolls (one for each missile) or one roll (for a single target)?

The answer will have a substantial effect on the power level of magic missile. Balancing the damage output of a direct-damage spell is exactly the sort of thing we pay professional game designers to do; there is no benefit to making each individual DM do it.

(FWIW, when Mike Mearls was asked about this on Twitter, he responded that the intent was once per target; if I shoot my missiles at three targets, I deal 1d4+4 to each, but if I shoot them all at one target, I do 3d4+6 rather than 3d4+12.)

 

[Mr Fixit]

If I cast magic missile and aim at three different targets, I am rolling 1d4+1 damage for each. The ability says I add my Int mod to "the damage roll" of any evocation spell of 1st level or above. Here, I've got three damage rolls. Does the bonus apply to just one of those rolls? Or does it apply to each of the three? Or does it apply once but I can split it up? And if it applies to each of the three, what happens if I cast it again and focus fire on a single target? Does that constitute three rolls (one for each missile) or one roll (for a single target)?

The answer will have a substantial effect on the power level of magic missile. Balancing the damage output of a direct-damage spell is exactly the sort of thing we pay professional game designers to do; there is no benefit to making each individual DM do it.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Still, and maybe that's just my (flawed) reading, but I'd think the reasonable thing to do is to apply Int mod once per spell cast and to whichever of the missile(s) you want. Unless you think it's OK to throw around 3d4+18 damage with a 1st level spell that allows no save. It meshes with all the other rules to the same effect that let you apply the relevant modifier - it's always once after you total the damage dice. On the other hand, when the 1st level life cleric's feature boosts his healing spells by a certain amount, it specifically mentions that the boost applies not to the spell (which would mean once no matter how many recipients you include), but to creature's hitpoints (adding the boost to every recipient's healing).

In light of all this, I really don't think the empowered evocation entry regarding magic missile could be interpreted otherwise.

EDIT: Hm, though that Mearls' clarification sure is... odd. I'd even say counterintuitive.

 

[Mistwell]

You attacked the Oberoni Fallacy as invalid on it's face. I am totally sympathetic to 5e's rules approach. I had to respond though because you were basically throwing the baby out with the bath water. There is nothing wrong with the Oberoni Fallacy and it fits where appropriate. It is a genuine fallacy. I just made up an example of two cases where it would apply and wouldn't apply as a means of illustration. I am not even in this discussion otherwise.

I have the Oberoni Fallacy incorrectly applied against me all the time. That does not make me hate the Oberoni Fallacy. That is like saying I hate logic. I may hate the twisting of logic but I don't hate logic.

If the Oberoni Fallacy were "If a rule is so broken that you must house rule it to make it function, then it's a bad rule" I'd understand. But that's not the whole of what it's about. It's phrased in a much more broad manner than that. It's phrased such that anything which can be made to work by DM intervention is an indication of a broken rule to begin with. That encompasses both rules intended to use DM interpretation (like the Sneaking example), and those which do not.