Legildur said:
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.
With all due respect and genuine admiration for the designers... their intent be... well, just nevermind what their intent is. Trying to follow the designers intent rather than finding
our own way is not where I nor anyone I know has ever found the real enjoyment of the game. There is no possible way for them to have ever known or guessed what my or my players needs and desires are and thus no way for them to individually address how we should handle the rules in order to get it.
The RAW is the basic building block, but what do you do when the FAQ, for example, is in clear contradiction to the RAW?
Case in point - you IGNORE every last syllable except that which provides results that you like. Their intent, their opinion, their expertise often can have not even the LEAST bearing on what works for me and my game. Furthermore, FAQ, Sage, and RAW disagreeing fundamentally with each other only shows that there IS no correct resolution if there is no graded test that we must all take to continue playing. The correct answer is the answer _I_ like - not what was intended nor what someone ELSE has decided is "official" or is correct for them.
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.
RAW, FAQ and Sage are useful TOOLS for finding the answer - they are not in and of themselves the answer. At least not in my well-considered opinion. Lacking a BETTER answer, using the "official" FAQ/Sage/RAW interpretation is a better fallback than just a 50/50 die roll, and if your own search for a better way/a better rule is stalled, THEN knowing what the designers intent was can be more useful than simply diagramming the sentence structure, analyzing the grammar and semantics of the RAW.
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.
Yet another excellent example. It should not matter what the official response is on this question. There is no test for correctness. IMC, anyone who wants to use a FS or some other such spell effect for concealment is excercising creativity so I actually would have motivation to IGNORE official answers to the contrary so that I may reward that creativity. Someone else may find that filling only 52% of a 5' cube fails to tip their scales of justification and deny the attempt at a concealment bonus. Both responses ARE correct regardless of whatever the FAQ or Sage or Errata may say now or in the future on the subject.
No player ever needs the "official" rule except as ammunition in an argument against a DM's ruling. No DM needs it except as a BASIS for his ruling. DM's failing to make reasonable rulings, or players failing to accept them is another subject.
