RAW and special circumstances

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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?

Let's just start by saying that those who aver that the RAW always stands regardless of circumstances are not playing the same game that I am and I wonder if they are reading the same rulebooks and discussion forums. The fact that errata, faqs and "rules" forums exist at all are pretty much QED that interpretation or at least clarification of rules is vitally necessary on a continuing basis. Rules for an RPG, however comprehensive, CANNOT cover all eventualities. Part of the reason for HAVING a DM is to make those judgements when they become necessary - and is why DMing is less science than art.

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?

Concealment. The description is highly indicative of having no solidity - it cannot push, batter, or cause any damage but by its flames. An arrow meeting it's "spongy, YIELDING, consistency" would not be physically deflected in any way as hard cover would do. But being a 5' diameter sphere of flame there is every reason to consider it to provide viable concealment.

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.)

There is absolutely no description of the physical appearance of the spell effect. There is no basis for assuming that it is visible in the dark any more than any arrow or flying dagger would be. However, this could stand as an example of where a DM is not just allowed but might even be encouraged to provide unique details to his campaign by declaring that it DOES provide a minimal light effect sufficient for it to be visible in darkness but not for it to illuminate any area around it.

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, ANY flame effect should be considered to provide illumination equal to its area/intensity/etc. This could be considered to expand the uses of the spell but only if you had failed to consider previously that flame generally consists of heat and LIGHT.

Can you get full concealment by hiding inside an illusion?

Depends on the illusion, but as a default rule of thumb - yes. Illusion is, after all, all about visual misdirection and confusion.

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?

Either is acceptible. Neither one is assumed. Personally, without the spell description indicating that there is ANY residual effect of any kind upon the spell effect expiring I would say that at the end of the spell duration all creatures affected return to their former conditions without any further effect.

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

Rays are ranged touch attacks. The DMG indicates that an invisible creature with reach greater than 5 feet that strikes someone enables the struck character to know the general location but not pinpont the attackers exact location. That should apply to ranged touch attacks as well as "reach" attacks. Even if the striking character WERE pinpointed he would still retain total concealment and thus a 50% miss chance on being attacked. All pinpointing means is that you don't have to pick the square that you think the invisible enemy is in when you try to attack him.

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?

IMO, anyone insisting on that kind of attitude is not clear on either the "roleplaying" or "game" aspects of a roleplaying game as I have understood them to be for the last 20+ years.

 

[Legildur]

Let's just start by saying that those who aver that the RAW always stands regardless of circumstances are not playing the same game that I am and I wonder if they are reading the same rulebooks and discussion forums. The fact that errata, faqs and "rules" forums exist at all are pretty much QED that interpretation or at least clarification of rules is vitally necessary on a continuing basis. Rules for an RPG, however comprehensive, CANNOT cover all eventualities. Part of the reason for HAVING a DM is to make those judgements when they become necessary - and is why DMing is less science than art.

I agree and disagree. First, let me say that I agree with you completely that the DM is required to make judgements on an ongoing basis.

I believe, however, that the reason most people seek a clarification of the RAW on this Rules Forum is to avoid an arbitrary (if well intention) judgement by the DM which may contrary to designer intent. The RAW is the basic building block, but what do you do when the FAQ, for example, is in clear contradiction to the RAW? Suddenly your uber PC which has been carefully and cleverly designed with a hideously detailed background suddenly becomes redundant due to an unforseen rules interpretation that appears at odds with the RAW? Sure, I go along with the DM's decision - once it is made - but I'm not afraid to debate the point with him up until that point. And I'm loathe to rely on the FAQ or Rules of the Game due to series of errors in both documents.

Now, the flaming sphere, by my (very rusty) calculations, only fills 52% of a 5ft cube. I'm not sure if that is enough to grant concealment.

 

[Jack Simth]

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.

Easily dealt with:

Spell Slots: The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day. These openings for daily spells are called spell slots. A spellcaster always has the option to fill a higher-level spell slot with a lower-level spell. A spellcaster who lacks a high enough ability score to cast spells that would otherwise be his or her due still gets the slots but must fill them with spells of lower level.

(Emphasis added).

You don't need a -1st level spell slot. A 5th level Wizard could start and fail to complete ten such scrolls/wands per day before getting into bonus spell slots from a high Intelligence score.

 

[Jack Simth]

Now, the flaming sphere, by my (very rusty) calculations, only fills 52% of a 5ft cube. I'm not sure if that is enough to grant concealment.

A sphere has a face as a circle (pi*r^2), while a cube has a face as a square. In this case, that's a 25 square foot face on the cube, and a roughly 19.6 square foot face on the sphere (assuming a 5-foot diameter sphere, as specified in the spell description).

 

[Infiniti2000]

A sphere has a face as a circle (pi*r^2), while a cube has a face as a square. In this case, that's a 25 square foot face on the cube, and a roughly 19.6 square foot face on the sphere (assuming a 5-foot diameter sphere, as specified in the spell description).

Re: circle: it depends on who's looking, but close enough for government work for the normal binocular vision.

The missing part of this analysis is perspective projection. The 19.6 square-foot-face will block a lot more if the viewer is dead center on the opposite side, very close.

 

[Jack Simth]

Re: circle: it depends on who's looking, but close enough for government work for the normal binocular vision.

The missing part of this analysis is perspective projection. The 19.6 square-foot-face will block a lot more if the viewer is dead center on the opposite side, very close.

Well, yes, but how many DM's want to go to the trouble of noting that the Colossal Titan over there has eyes that are ten feet apart, and then calculate how that impacts what he can see of the halfling hiding behind the sphere?

 

[Hypersmurf]

You don't need a -1st level spell slot. A 5th level Wizard could start and fail to complete ten such scrolls/wands per day before getting into bonus spell slots from a high Intelligence score.

But our Arcane Thesis E-Sub Ray of Frost, for example, is a 0 level spell, taking up a spell slot one level lower than normal. Arcane Thesis does not change the level of the spell, merely its slot.

But since we don't have any -1 level slots, we're casting it out of a 0 level slot.

So we have a 0 level spell, being cast out of a 0 level slot. For what reason would the cost to create be negative?

Interestingly, it would appear that an Arcane Thesis E-Sub Cone of Cold, for example, would still be ineligible for placement in a wand; the level 4 limit takes metamagic into account, but specifically it's the higher level that's accounted for.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

A sphere has a face as a circle (pi*r^2), while a cube has a face as a square. In this case, that's a 25 square foot face on the cube, and a roughly 19.6 square foot face on the sphere (assuming a 5-foot diameter sphere, as specified in the spell description).

Ah yes, good point. Which would make it about 78% coverage..... for two medium or smaller creatures (depending on their respective distances from the sphere).

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Shilsen answered all the particular rules questions exactly as I would.

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.

I agree with you regarding the relatively worthless "It depends on your DM" responses. However, I disagree with the notion that personal rulings are irrelevent. A fair portion of rules questions in this forum are posted, not by players, but by fellow DMs. One DM asks, "how does this work?" because he wants to know how other DMs are ruling, and then make his own decision from there. In these cases, "I'd personally rule..." answers are not only valid, but particularly helpful.

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").

While these kinds of posts do crop up from time to time, I don't think there's anything "typical" about them with regards to "most questions" in this forum. It's been my experience that there are more DM posts in the Rules forum than player, though I won't say that's an actual statistic. Rather, let me say that there is an appreciable DM presence in this forum.

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?

I believe the RAW are the baseline, with DM tweaking as necessary. As a player, I dislike DMs who randomly discard the RAW. I want a baseline for assumptions, which can and should then be changed as needed. That baseline is the RAW. As a DM, that is the kind of game I run. If it's not written in the rules, don't assume it will happen. But feel free to ask about it if you think it should. And don't be surprised if occasionally, a rule is modified through DM fiat (like Great Cleave and the sack of puppies.)

 

[KarinsDad]

I believe the RAW are the baseline, with DM tweaking as necessary. As a player, I dislike DMs who randomly discard the RAW. I want a baseline for assumptions, which can and should then be changed as needed. That baseline is the RAW. As a DM, that is the kind of game I run. If it's not written in the rules, don't assume it will happen. But feel free to ask about it if you think it should. And don't be surprised if occasionally, a rule is modified through DM fiat (like Great Cleave and the sack of puppies.)

Agreed.

As a DM, I have a few pages of house rules. Recently, I have added several new house rules. When I do this, sometimes I ask for a vote. For example, I recently changed Cure spells to do 2D4 instead of D8 for Cure Light and Cure Moderate. I asked for a vote because I know some players dislike rolling D4s. However, the advantage is that the PCs rarely roll extremely low on 2D4 and actually average slightly more curing and I thought the players would appreciate that advantage (i.e. fewer overall extra days of holing up to get everyone healed up due to low roll streaks).

On the other hand, I also recently ruled that the Orb spells have Spell Resistance. I did not take a vote. I just implemented that house rule. I find the Orbs unbalanced at higher levels otherwise.

But, I try to keep my house rules down to a reasonable limit. The typical interpretation (which usually means the literal interpretation) of RAW is what most players read in the books. Unless the writeup is unclear or easily open to multiple interpretations, this is what players expect to be the rules.

So, RAW is very important for consistency and comprehension for the players, and this is why I try to play the game for most rules according to RAW.