Literal reading vs common sense - which should take precedence?

[Ahglock]

I'd stick with the rules as long as the rules didn't cause some kind of imbalanced abuse.

Thing is I see all PC classes as kind of super charged, so most unrealistic types of common sense need not apply. A halfling shifting the tarrasque no problem. Heck I'd like the halfling to be able to pick it up and body slam it at epic levels.

 

[Syrsuro]

Slightly off-topic - wouldn't the rule that teleport does not provoke OAs for movement deal with this anyway?

I'd've thought so, but the wording of Polearm Gambit is such that many argue that it doesn't matter HOW you got to the adjacent square (including teleport), they get the attack. They call it "Specific trumping General", I call it ignoring the obvious intent (i.e. common sense) and reading the words of the feat too literally.

Carl

 

[LightPhoenix]

I'll take a third point of view - whatever the group agrees is the spirit of the rules, over common sense and over rules are written.

In most cases, the spirit of the rules is the actual rules. However, the spirit of the rules dictates over the rules as written when there is an ambiguity. Above even that is the group consensus. Of course, that depends on getting along with your group (ie, friends).

 

[Stalker0]

As far as the rules forum goes, you should read the rules just like a lawyer would.

DMs and players are well within their right to play a rule however they want, but its important to have a baseline, and that should be the rule as written in the book.

 

[Syrsuro]

I agree, but only because I see the rules forum as 'reductio ad absurdum' in practice.

In some cases, the forums simply point out the minor points that were overlooked and serve to simply inform and illuminate. The rules are clear and the forum only serves to point to the text.

But equally often, the rules are vague or conflicting - in which case they get debated here in depth, and every tiny detail of the RAW is dragged out and the holes and downright sillyness gets exposed.

And in the process, somewhere along the way, the forums typically stumble across the real intent of the rules - typically on their way far past their actual intent to something else entirely. And we (and hopefully WoTC) can either recognize from the process a clear intent regardless of the literal rule OR a need for errata to fix the absurdity.

But I don't think I would take the strictly literal RAW, as uncovered by the forums, as an indication of how I should actually play unless the RAW made good sense in actual play.

Carl

 

[pemerton]

As far as the rules forum goes, you should read the rules just like a lawyer would.

My problem with the rules forum is that this is not its typical approach.

When lawyers read a document (say a contract, a statute, or a deed of trust) the aim is to recover, via objective canons of interpretation, the intention expressed by the document. This often requires imputation of one or more purposes, the drawing of implications, the disregarding of obvious errors in grammatical tense or number, etc.

The rules forum tends to prefer a literalist reading even if it is absurd. This is not a lawyer's approach - not even the most conservative textualist says that documents should be construed in an absurd fashion if the text in question admits of some other tenable and non-absurd reading.

To illustrate by way of example: Seal of Binding says that "the target can't be affected by any attack other than this one". There is a debate as to what "attack" means here. The lawyer's approach is to note that "affects" is cognate with "effect", and that Attack Powers (including Wall of Fire) are what have effects, and hence to conclude that a creature hit by Seal of Binding cannot be damaged by a Wall of Fire. This is also the most sensible interpretation, as it renders Seal of Binding less broken.

The feat Evasion (slighly rephrased) says "you take no damage from . . . an area or close attack . . . when that attack misses you but deals damage on a miss." The lawyer's approach here is most naturally to interpret the word "damage" in the phrase "no damage" as referring to the damage that (but for the feat) one would be dealt on a miss, and not to other damage that might be dealt by the attack (eg if it creates a zone). This interpretation is consistent with earlier versions of Evasion (in 3E, and 1st ed Monks) and makes the benefit from the feat more consistent and less dependent on the number of published zone-creating powers that also have miss effects.

A consequence of these interpretations is that "attack" has a slighly different meaning on the two occasions. A lawyer can tolerate that if it is the price of otherwise sensibly-reasoned interpretations.

When the rules forum dismisses this sort of interpretation as "RAI" rather than "RAW", or as taking illegitimate account of purposive or pragmatic considerations, it has abandoned lawyer-like interpretation for something quite different.

 

[Jack Colby]

As with every edition, you should never be a slave to the rules, especially if your group isn't digging them.

 

[Jhaelen]

As far as the rules forum goes, you should read the rules just like a lawyer would.

DMs and players are well within their right to play a rule however they want, but its important to have a baseline, and that should be the rule as written in the book.

Well, I disagree. Normally, I'd expect someone posting a question about a rule looking for advice. Most posters stop at describing RAW which is rarely helpful (well, at least I find it rarely helpful).

The rules forum tends to prefer a literalist reading even if it is absurd.

QFT! Maybe I should add this to my sig...

I actually started a thread not so long ago because this tendency in the rules forum is really starting to get on my nerves. Well, the thread was apparently deleted which probably was fine since I guess my annoyance led to my abandoning politeness.

Still, many of the rule debates here remind me of Zeno's paradox: I.e. arguing that Achilles cannot overtake a tortoise if the tortoise gets a head start.

If a rule as written makes zero sense, why bother using it for an argument? Sure it makes for an interesting debate, but what is the practical benefit?

The game has a DM. Therefore there's no need to restrict yourself to rules as written, EVER.

 

[Leatherhead]

Obviously I am against the use of common sense (see sig quote), mostly because those kinds of rules can vary wildly from person to person.

I will concede that a literal interpretation can cause headaches however.

 

[Runestar]

If a rule as written makes zero sense, why bother using it for an argument? Sure it makes for an interesting debate, but what is the practical benefit?

I do personally feel that even if a certain rule is deemed unplayable if followed to the letter, it should still be retained so that in the very least, it can be referenced as a base. Nor would a rule cease to become the RAW just because it is interpreted as faulty.

If someone wishes to weigh in with their own opinions, they are certainly welcome, but it should be borne in mind that whatever houserules they are proposing remain ultimately just that - houserules, and be recognized as such.

At the end of the day, the person asking the question should have garnered sufficient information to allow him/her to make an informed decision regarding how they wish to interpret said rule. While I don't mind people talking about their own proposed changes, what irks me is them suddenly acting all bossy and trying to pass off their own houserules as canon/RAW, to the extent that they start using personal attacks to deride other people who may have a differing opinion, such as by suggesting that any alternative interpretation necessary means that they are powergamers/munchkins or that they are somehow lacking in "common sense".

I wonder if a better way would go as follows.

Q) Can I do XXX?

A) By the RAW, yes apparently, since/because (cite relevant text here).

However, doing so may result in (list potential issues/concerns and why they may be problematic). To avoid such a problem from cropping up in your game, I would suggest that (list possible solutions/alternative recommendations).

After sifting through all the relevant discussion, the OP should hopefully have gleaned enough information to make an informed decision about how he wants to interpret said rule. For all we know, he may opt to disregard everyone's advice and run it as originally written. And the choice would be his and his alone, we can't really fault him for that. Nor should we really care, since how his game does turn out would have no impact on ours. So our job is more or less done.

Discuss.