RAW and special circumstances

[Quasqueton]

Spells do what they say they do. Nothing more or less.

if it doesn't say it in the spell description, the spell doesn't provide it

This concept gets spoken quite a lot in this forum. It seems to suggest that there is no room or need for DM interpretation. Although I prefer to use the RAW, straight, I still run into plenty of instances where a DM must make a ruling and/or interpretation. Even situations where the DM may have to actually rule against the RAW.

Or am I wrong? Does the RAW always stand, regardless of circumstances?


How would you rule these examples:

A flaming sphere is 5’-dameter spongy, burning, globe of fire. Say a halfling casts it between himself and a goblin archer, down a 5’-wide corridor. Does it provide cover or concealment for the halfling?

Can you see a magic missile “shot” through a dark room (at a target in a lighted area)? Can you see a magic missile in a lighted room? (It is merely described as a “magical force”, which in all/most other cases is not visible.)

Does a wall of fire illuminate the area it is in and around? If it can be used as a light source, doesn’t that expand the uses and flexibility, and therefore the power, of the spell?

Can you get full concealment by hiding inside an illusion?

If you cast sleep on an already sleeping target, does it wake up at the end of the spell’s duration, or does it continuing sleeping, but in a normal (noise can awaken) mode?

If a mage with improved invisibility casts disintegrate, can you “trace” the ray back to the caster’s square (for targeting)? Are rays visible?

And I love the summoned celestial bison thread for these questions:

Can the summoned celestial bison initiate a grapple? Can it perform a heal check to stabilize a dying PC?

What do you think? Does “spells do what they say they do; nothing more or less,” cover all circumstances? Do some things (spells in the above examples) do more/less than the rules explicitly state?

Quasqueton

 

[shilsen]

How would you rule these examples:

A flaming sphere is 5’-dameter spongy, burning, globe of fire. Say a halfling casts it between himself and a goblin archer, down a 5’-wide corridor. Does it provide cover or concealment for the halfling?

No.

Can you see a magic missile “shot” through a dark room (at a target in a lighted area)?

No.

Can you see a magic missile in a lighted room? (It is merely described as a “magical force”, which in all/most other cases is not visible.)

Yes.

Does a wall of fire illuminate the area it is in and around? If it can be used as a light source, doesn’t that expand the uses and flexibility, and therefore the power, of the spell?

Yes. Yes.

Can you get full concealment by hiding inside an illusion?

Depends on the type of illusion.

If you cast sleep on an already sleeping target, does it wake up at the end of the spell’s duration, or does it continuing sleeping, but in a normal (noise can awaken) mode?

The latter.

If a mage with improved invisibility casts disintegrate, can you “trace” the ray back to the caster’s square (for targeting)? Are rays visible?

Not so you can pinpoint the square, but so as to get the general area. Usually, yes.

And I love the summoned celestial bison thread for these questions:

Can the summoned celestial bison initiate a grapple?

Yes. But it'll take a pretty specific command to do so.

Can it perform a heal check to stabilize a dying PC?

Nope.

What do you think? Does “spells do what they say they do; nothing more or less,” cover all circumstances?

No. It's true in most cases, however.

Do some things (spells in the above examples) do more/less than the rules explicitly state?

Yes.

All of the above are how I'd rule in my game, of course. I'd be perfectly fine with a DM ruling otherwise in some cases and figure we're both still correct by RAW.

 

[Caliban]

This concept gets spoken quite a lot in this forum. It seems to suggest that there is no room or need for DM interpretation. Although I prefer to use the RAW, straight, I still run into plenty of instances where a DM must make a ruling and/or interpretation. Even situations where the DM may have to actually rule against the RAW.

Or am I wrong? Does the RAW always stand, regardless of circumstances?

Pure RAW doesn't always make for a fun or consistent game, when it comes to actual play. You only have to read this forum for a few days to come across many cases of silly or inconstistent situations can that result from a blind application of RAW.

Common sense and the spirit of the rules is every bit as important, despite those individuals who like to proclaim things like "you can't determine the spirit of the rules" and "you can't determine designer intent" or "there is no such thing as common sense."

The rules don't exist in a vacuum, and interpeting them should be done in the context of the larger body of rules and overall game balance. That's the job of the DM during play, and the gaming group as a whole outside of play.

But that's just my opinion. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell you how everything I just said is wrong.

 

[IcyCool]

But that's just my opinion. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to tell you how everything I just said is wrong.

You rang?

Actually, I don't disagree with what you've stated, I'd just like to add a qualifier to one of your paragraphs:

Common sense and the spirit of the rules is every bit as important, despite those individuals who like to proclaim things like "you can't determine the spirit of the rules" and "you can't determine designer intent" or "there is no such thing as common sense."

Just keep in mind that what you think "the spirit of the rules" are will be different from what some/most others think it is. Likewise, "designer intent" as you see it will be different as some/most other people see it. And of course there's the old adage, "Common sense is hardly common", meaning that someone's version of 'common sense' will probably look like idiocy to you.

In other words, those three things are almost entirely subjective.

But they are useful/important to a DM when s/he has to make a rules call.

 

[Mistwell]

Pure RAW doesn't seem to work in all situations.

Some are so obvious that pretty much everyone agrees. I can think of two examples off the top of my head. The first is the Karma Beads magic item, which as written would MAKE the creator money and experience if they made one with fewer beads than normal. Obviously, RAW fails in this case. The second is the Arcane Thesis feat in PHBII, which as written would allow someone to make a 0 level scroll as a -1 level spell, also making them money and experience for making a scroll. Again, a silly result that is obviously flawed.

Other times, most people agree RAW doesn't work well, but not everyone. An example includes Divine Metamagic feat (without the houserule that you can't increase the spell slot beyond the highest level spell slot you have) combined with multiple Night Sticks (magic item from Libris Mortis that increases your turn attempts per day, and they stack by RAW).

And then you have the iffy cases. For examples of those, see most of the rules board.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The second is the Arcane Thesis feat in PHBII, which as written would allow someone to make a 0 level scroll as a -1 level spell, also making them money and experience for making a scroll.

Doesn't work

The act of writing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from her currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

How many -1 level slots does your hypothetical scriber have?

-Hyp.

 

[Mistwell]

Doesn't work

The act of writing triggers the prepared spell, making it unavailable for casting until the character has rested and regained spells. (That is, that spell slot is expended from her currently prepared spells, just as if it had been cast.)

How many -1 level slots does your hypothetical scriber have?

-Hyp.

True. Just makes it wildly broken as opposed to insanely broken

Mind you, I think Arcane Thesis is fine if used as CustServ said (that you cannot reduce the level of the spell slot used below the level of the original spell, and that a +0 spell slot increase metamagic feat like energy substitution has no effect with Arcane Thesis).

 

[Andre]

Just keep in mind that what you think "the spirit of the rules" are will be different from what some/most others think it is.

Which is why I spend far less time worrying about "the spirit of the rules" and instead worry about the spirit of my gaming group.

So long as we're having fun, I see no problem if we interpret some rules differently than the designer(s) would.

 

[Abraxas]

Spells do what they say they do. Nothing more or less.
if it doesn't say it in the spell description, the spell doesn't provide it

I find these two statements apply most often when a player is trying to get some tactical benefit out of a spell. Concealment from a flaming sphere falls in this category - If allowed then you have to track it vs everything that is similar - do you get concealment from a campfire between you and an opponent, do you get cover or concealment from ring of blade, etc. etc.

The other questions deal more with incidental side effects of the spells but to what extent is limited by DM discretion - fire illuminates so he may decide a wall of fire is only as bright as a candle, Visual Illusions have to affect what the target sees - it wouldn't be a very good illusion if it could be seen through so he decides you can hide in it, etc.

But these decisions are arbitrary and based on the expectations of the players and DM in a specific game and should be communicated to the players by the DM. Its slightly annoying for the DM to decide a spell does X because of the flavor text and to then use that against the players who have no expectation of X, even though their PCs would.

 

[Glyfair]

Or am I wrong? Does the RAW always stand, regardless of circumstances?

IMO, almost everyone that gets involved in these rules discussions are perfectly willing to accept a DM making an interpretation of a rule that differs from the RAW (or at least the apparent RAW).

However, when someone posts here and asks a rule question isn't really looking for the answer "Well, it depends on how your DM rules" (which would be "ask you DM how he's going to rule). Similiarly, I think tanswering most of these questions "Well, I'd personaly rule..." is more often than not off the mark, because how you rule has nothing to do with how is DM rules.

Typically the subtext of most questions is "How does this rule work, with what we have in the boooks." In fact, I think a good number of them are players looking for validation after a DM ruled differently than they wanted (at the extremes "I abused the wording of this rule and my DM ruled against me, was he wrong").

Sure, there are exceptions. Sometimes a DM will say "This rule looks off, should I rule it this way" and then you can get a different discussion growing. But, for the basic question, I'd assume the poster is intending to discuss the rule and the wording (and sometimes testing to see if an interpretation goes against the wording or feel of a rule).