The rules have been said to be written intentionally vague and given the amount of arguments I've seen over certain rulings and how multiple valid conclusions can be drawn from even the simplest of rules, I'm wondering if there is even any point at all to arguing RAW. It seems intentional that 5e be RAI, and that it's up to groups to determine their own interpretations.
If this was the intention and it ends up staying that way, i.e. WotC doesn't start a Sage Advice column so as to end disputes, I have to say that I think I prefer it this way. It's certainly a paradigm shift away from what I recall as having been the status quo since at least 2e, which I believe started with the Sage Advice column in Dragon magazine. The problem with RAW is that it can lead to unintentional conflicts and absurd combinations that, due to being RAW, are allowed and therefore argued by players as being legitimate choices in the game. RAI, OTOH, creates the expectation that the DM & group agree on what is going to be the interpretations used in their game.
One of the other reasons I believe this will be the new and intended methodology of 5e is that there seems to be a strong trend towards giving the DM more latitude and power to determine the scope of the game instead of putting all the power into the players hands, which is essentially a situation which a strict RAW game creates.
Anyway, that's my take and I thought it would make for an interesting discussion. So what do you think about RAW in 5e?
If this was the intention and it ends up staying that way, i.e. WotC doesn't start a Sage Advice column so as to end disputes, I have to say that I think I prefer it this way. It's certainly a paradigm shift away from what I recall as having been the status quo since at least 2e, which I believe started with the Sage Advice column in Dragon magazine. The problem with RAW is that it can lead to unintentional conflicts and absurd combinations that, due to being RAW, are allowed and therefore argued by players as being legitimate choices in the game. RAI, OTOH, creates the expectation that the DM & group agree on what is going to be the interpretations used in their game.
One of the other reasons I believe this will be the new and intended methodology of 5e is that there seems to be a strong trend towards giving the DM more latitude and power to determine the scope of the game instead of putting all the power into the players hands, which is essentially a situation which a strict RAW game creates.
Anyway, that's my take and I thought it would make for an interesting discussion. So what do you think about RAW in 5e?