RAW? What is this

[Fieari]

Oh, if only...if only they had managed to get it through. It would have been the most glorious failure Indiana had ever perpetrated. My eyes well with tears at the thought of its awful magnificence, gone forever because of an unfortunately right-minded senate.

The bill didn't actually redefine pi. It allowed public schools to teach a specific mathematical "proof" of a method to Square-the-Circle (now proven to be impossible) some guy came up with. The bill in fact was to make it teachable without paying royalties. None of the politicians had any idea of what it was saying at all. But the end result was that pi would come out to 3.2 if the proof was accurate. http://db.uwaterloo.ca/~alopez-o/math-faq/node45.html

So it wasn't pi=3 or pi=3.2 that was passed, but rather, "We're allowed to teach that pi=3.2 without paying some dude royalty fees." And yeah, it got squashed when a mathematician came in and told them all off for being idiots.

 

[arscott]

Actually, it does always mean the same thing: rules from the PHB, DMG, and MM only. It's not a matter of interpretation; anyone using the term otherwise is wrong. In fact, take a look at the cover of your PHB, DMG, or MM: the word 'Core' is right there.

Oops. I see how that can be misinterpreted.

What I meant was "Core Rules doesn't always mean the same thing as RAW does." in reference to Umbran's previous post. The various definitions were for RAW rather than Core Rules.