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

[Hussar]

You are confusing "Having RAW" and "Having a well researched, really good RAW". You almost never get the later. And given that, merely having RAW gets you nothing in this category of concerns.

For instance, you seem to imagine simply doing a "smigeon" of research on the matter of "tracking over cobblestones is more difficult than hearing a noise through the ground from ten miles away." would yield a "good" and "well researched" RAW. To me, this statement has no basis in reality. In fact, I find it hard to take such a claim seriously. No "smigeon" of research in such an esoteric subject will yield good results. Better to spend your time giving people good guidelines to judge it themselves should the topic ever (on very rare occasion) come up. I really REALLY do not want rules writers to be researching that level of minutia just to put out a game.

Same goes for your other highly useless factoids. This is not a medieval fantasy simulation game - we don't need a bunch of research on the ability to swim in armor or ability of a katana to cut through a tank.

Well, considering at least the swimming in armour thing has come up in games I've played, I'd hope that a tiny bit of research by the developers could give me at least a baseline answer. And, oh look, in 3e onwards, they added skill modifiers for armour that, by and large, work.

What does "medieval fantasy simulation game" have to do with anything? If you are going to make mechanics that are based on believability, why not actually take the time to look into how things actually work in the real world?

Thing is, IME, rulings from the gut are almost always wrong. They are almost always more punishing to the players than reality would actually be. Mostly because "gut feelings" don't take a lot of factors into consideration - like the idea that someone running away might drop something, or snag something, or is maybe bleeding, or his horse poops or whatever it is that you use to track. Having a RAW baseline at least puts everyone on the same page.

 

[KarinsDad]

Thing is, IME, rulings from the gut are almost always wrong. They are almost always more punishing to the players than reality would actually be. Mostly because "gut feelings" don't take a lot of factors into consideration - like the idea that someone running away might drop something, or snag something, or is maybe bleeding, or his horse poops or whatever it is that you use to track.

But how does one know that the dropped item, or snagged item, or blood, or poop comes from the creature being pursued?

Gut rulings are not wrong, they are just potentially different from someone else's gut rulings.

Having a RAW baseline at least puts everyone on the same page.

Or at least it starts them there. I suspect that lenient DMs tend to give bonuses to PCs over RAW, stringent DMs give penalties, and many DMs use RAW "as written".

 

[Hussar]

But how does one know that the dropped item, or snagged item, or blood, or poop comes from the creature being pursued?

Gut rulings are not wrong, they are just potentially different from someone else's gut rulings.



Or at least it starts them there. I suspect that lenient DMs tend to give bonuses to PCs over RAW, stringent DMs give penalties, and many DMs use RAW "as written".

Well, that would be the result of a successful skill check would it not? If I failed the skill check, then I wouldn't know that that came from the creature pursued. If I succeed, then I do.

No, I agree, gut feelings aren't wrong. But, they tend to be more wrong than results based on facts. And, again, IME, people are very, very poor at judging odds on the fly. How difficult should a "difficult" task actually be? Gut feelings say that success should be around 20%, but, when you actually start drilling down, you realise that that's way too low. A task you fail 4 in 5 times is extremely difficult. Presuming any ability on the part of the person taking the action of course.

RAW very much has a place here. Even if the DM is deviating from RAW, at least he should be conscious of the fact that he is doing so, rather than just making a "gut" ruling. It simply provides a bit of a buffer between the gut and the colon so to speak.

 

[Mistwell]

What does "medieval fantasy simulation game" have to do with anything? If you are going to make mechanics that are based on believability, why not actually take the time to look into how things actually work in the real world?

The rules are not based on real world believability in D&D. There are games that have that as a goal, but D&D is not one of them.

Thing is, IME, rulings from the gut are almost always wrong.

There is no wrong. This is not a game of objective truths concerning physics and such.

 

[Paraxis]

I am a big RAW guy, but with this edition RAI has its place, because the rules are written poorly for strict RAW.

Example.
The fighter ability under fighting styles.
TWO WEAPON FIGHTING
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of lhe second attack.

Strict RAW, only the damage of the second attack in a turn has the option to add your ability modifier to the damage roll. So if you use your bonus action to attack first you don't add your modifier, if you get two attacks with an attack action for being 5th level and use both of them with your main hand, that makes your bonus action attack with your off hand the third attack in the turn.

But come on the intent is obvious here the off hand attack gets the ability modifier added to it no matter if it is the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth attack in the turn.

So RAW 99% of the time, unless the wording is so vague that you have to use RAI.

 

[Hereticus]

RAW, RAI, OTOH

I do speak English, but what do these mean?

 

[Paraxis]

I do speak English, but what do these mean?

RAW = Rules As Written
RAI = Rules As Intended
OTOH = On The Other Hand

Rules as written is reading things by the letter of law, and rules as intended is reading them by the spirit of the law.

RAW is normally not subjective it is clear and if you break a rule down easy to grasp.

RAI is hard most of the time because it is very subjective and without the original author sharing their intent subject to much debate.

 

[Hussar]

The rules are not based on real world believability in D&D. There are games that have that as a goal, but D&D is not one of them.



There is no wrong. This is not a game of objective truths concerning physics and such.

Unfortunately, gut rulings have as much to do with who is doing the asking as what's being asked. Not every time of course but often enough.

Bob is being a PITA tonight so his chance of tracking is vetoed. Dave is having a bad night and the DM is throwing a bone so his chances are good.

I prefer sticking to RAW as much as possible thanks. Saves so much arguing around the table.

 

[pemerton]

But how does one know that the dropped item, or snagged item, or blood, or poop comes from the creature being pursued?

Well, that would be the result of a successful skill check would it not? If I failed the skill check, then I wouldn't know that that came from the creature pursued. If I succeed, then I do.

Just adding to what Hussar said: if I succed on the Tracking roll, then the upshot of following the trail of dropped items etc is that I find my quarry; if I fail, then the upshot is that the items lead me astray.

Also, on this issue of tracking over cobblestones: I live in a suburb with many cobbled lanes. Cobblestones hold mud (and you can clean your shoe by dragging it across a cobblestone); plants grow in the cracks, and those plants can be knocked over or torn up by passing feet; puddles form in unevenness on the stones, and those puddles can be splashed; if it stops raining, water from puddles can be stepped in, leading to wet footprints on the stones; etc.

I have no skill at tracking, but I don't see why cobblestones are so much harder to track over than, say, a relatively featureless grassy plain. Whereas the idea that the sound of footsteps, short of an army or a herd of cattle, might travel 10s of miles through the ground seems rather fanciful to me.

 

[pemerton]

TWO WEAPON FIGHTING
When you engage in two-weapon fighting, you can add your ability modifier to the damage of lhe second attack.

Strict RAW, only the damage of the second attack in a turn has the option to add your ability modifier to the damage roll. So if you use your bonus action to attack first you don't add your modifier, if you get two attacks with an attack action for being 5th level and use both of them with your main hand, that makes your bonus action attack with your off hand the third attack in the turn.

What you set out is not the only literal reading, and not the most plausible

You are reading "second" as "temporally second". Whereas the most natural reading is "numerically second" - in other words, "second" is being used as a synonym for "additional".