Font of Inspiration grants less points than people think

[RobbyPants]

Is it also RAW? Something that is RAI but not RAW is exactly a houserule.

Not at all.
By that standard, every non-combat encounter is a houserule, even though by RAW you can have non-combat encounters. Actual creativity rates even worse.
Go down that path too far and you wind up with 4E's attempt at mathematical perfection of combat, encounter and monster design, and treasure assignment by lots.

I'm not talking about in context of what is or isn't a round. I'm talking about those two terms specifically, in any context. I'm not talking about whether or not we can unambiguously interpret RAI or even RAW.

I'm talking about if people can agree what RAW says and what RAI is, and those two differ, then RAI, by definition, isn't the rules as written. So, using RAI would, by definition, be a houserule. I'm not saying no one does it, and I'm not saying this isn't the symptom of poorly written rules making it into the final publication. We all know this is the case (see the shittastic hiding or illusion rules in 3E; everyone houserules those, even if they don't know they're doing it.).

You know, the weird thing is that I think this is the first large-ish, virulent argument we've had on these boards in... I dunno, a year or two?

I just thought I'd bring that up.

You're welcome.

I didn't actually think it'd be so contentious. I ultimately dropped my original stance, but this thing kind of evolved into several separate conversations.

[oslecamo]

Is it also RAW? Something that is RAI but not RAW is exactly a houserule.

Not at all.
By that standard, every non-combat encounter is a houserule, even though by RAW you can have non-combat encounters. Actual creativity rates even worse.
Go down that path too far and you wind up with 4E's attempt at mathematical perfection of combat, encounter and monster design, and treasure assignment by lots.

I'm not talking about in context of what is or isn't a round. I'm talking about those two terms specifically, in any context. I'm not talking about whether or not we can unambiguously interpret RAI or even RAW.

I'm talking about if people can agree what RAW says and what RAI is, and those two differ, then RAI, by definition, isn't the rules as written. So, using RAI would, by definition, be a houserule.

But the FAQ are a rules interpretation that are also written.

"Player asks: Hey, rule X is not very clear to me, can you explain it up wotc?
Wotc writes: What rule X means is Y and Z."

This is, it seems completely pointless to me to ask a question if you won't consider the answer valid for anything. And it's not something written in somebody's house, it's something written by the company itself.

If you grant yourself the power to selectively ignore the written bits you don't like, then you're most definetely not following RAW.

[Kaelik]

If you grant yourself the power to selectively ignore the written bits you don't like, then you're most definetely not following RAW.

And what if WotC specifically grants you the power to selectively ignore "the written bits" by declaring that the actual rules in the actual books supersede them completely and that they can't possibly modify or overwrite the actual rules?

Like if hypothetically they said "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct."

And then the primary source rules indicated that Dungeonscape is the primary source. (Arguably, the FAW isn't even a rules source at all, but that hardly helps your argument that it overrides actual rules).

[RobbyPants]

But the FAQ are a rules interpretation that are also written.

...

If you grant yourself the power to selectively ignore the written bits you don't like, then you're most definetely not following RAW.

Two things:

1) You're shifting the goal posts. I didn't mention the FAQ at all, so it's possible they could be taken into account.

2) FAQ rulings have a habit of being flat-out wrong, and they aren't considered errata. How are we to consider them when in direct contradiction of the texts? If they take precedent, then they would be the new RAW (and my point stands). If they do not supersede the rules texts and can only further explain, the old RAW is still the official rules (and my point stands).

[Kaelik]

I, for one, can't wait for our FAQ is the new RAW overlords.

"you only gain the benefits of the feat or prestige class as long as you continue to meet its requirements."

Down With Dragon Disciples and Ur-Priests!

"You can sunder a magic item with any kind of weapon; you don’t need something with an equal or higher enhancement bonus. Text to the contrary (found on page 222 of the DMG) is erroneous."

Back to enemies breaking your 200k weapons with a club!

"[Add facing back in for Tower Shields!] and also the total cover doesn't apply to spells!"

"You can't coup de grace with nonlethal damage, unless you want to, in which case you can."

"EBT can't be cast underwater!"

"Freedom of movement doesn't work on Hold Person because Hold Person takes away all your actions... What, you've read the rules for Paralysis and it doesn't take away actions? And Freedom of Movement specifically calls out Paralysis as a thing it negates? FUCK OFF!"

[SorO_Lost]

2) FAQ rulings have a habit of being flat-out wrong,

Having a habit of disagreeing with you doesn't mean something is wrong.

[Samwise]

I was going to say exactly what Oslecamo said in response.
From there:

Two things:

1) You're shifting the goal posts. I didn't mention the FAQ at all, so it's possible they could be taken into account.

Actually that is you trying to impose a limit after the fact.
You want to limit RAI to only what players think.
There are several sources of RAI for what the writers meant, one of them being the FAQ.
Granted, many of them are limited access, or even lost with the WotC forums gone, but they really are what the writers intended, and have at least a modicum more legitimacy than the random ramblings of a bunch of players with their own optimization exploits to promote.
And,

2) FAQ rulings have a habit of being flat-out wrong, and they aren't considered errata. How are we to consider them when in direct contradiction of the texts? If they take precedent, then they would be the new RAW (and my point stands). If they do not supersede the rules texts and can only further explain, the old RAW is still the official rules (and my point stands).

Which can be said to be the same problem with the RAW in the rules books.
If one rule book is in direct contradiction of another, which takes precedence as the new RAW?
Aren't there a multitude of screaming matches about that all over these forums?
Isn't that the core (as it were) of all the Core Books versus Splat Books versus Rules Compendium versus Errata arguments?

And above all that, you are still left with dealing with those elements of RAW that pretty much just say "make it up yourself", creating something between a Catch-22 and a zen koan:
"If it is RAW to houserule it, is your version a houserule or RAW?"

[Kaelik]

2) FAQ rulings have a habit of being flat-out wrong,

Having a habit of disagreeing with you doesn't mean something is wrong.

So what you are saying is that Hold Person prevents you from taking actions and Freedom of Movement doesn't work on it?

Sure, I'll keep that in mind for the future.

I was going to say exactly what Oslecamo said in response.
From there:

Two things:

1) You're shifting the goal posts. I didn't mention the FAQ at all, so it's possible they could be taken into account.

Actually that is you trying to impose a limit after the fact.
You want to limit RAI to only what players think.
There are several sources of RAI for what the writers meant, one of them being the FAQ.

Actually he specifically said "Is it RAI that isn't RAW? Then it's a houserule." So if FAQs are RAW, then he's not saying they are houserules, and if they aren't RAW, then he's saying they are houserules.

Or you know, exactly what he said in the post you are now claiming is a goal shift.

[RobbyPants]

2) FAQ rulings have a habit of being flat-out wrong,

Having a habit of disagreeing with you doesn't mean something is wrong.

...and you left out all the relevant parts of what I said in the rest of the post.

Actually that is you trying to impose a limit after the fact.
You want to limit RAI to only what players think.

Where did I say that RAI is only limited to player interpretation?

There are several sources of RAI for what the writers meant, one of them being the FAQ.
Granted, many of them are limited access, or even lost with the WotC forums gone, but they really are what the writers intended, and have at least a modicum more legitimacy than the random ramblings of a bunch of players with their own optimization exploits to promote.
And,

That is true... and none of those would be RAW. RAW would only be the actual texts and any official errata. The fact that RAI can come from any number of different sources is in no way a contradiction of what I said.

Which can be said to be the same problem with the RAW in the rules books.
If one rule book is in direct contradiction of another, which takes precedence as the new RAW?

Again, this in no way contradicts what I originally said. I never said that RAW was always in agreement with itself. All I said is that if RAW and RAI aren't in agreement, then that makes RAI a houserule, by definition. You haven't refuted that. You've just said that RAI can come from a number of places and that RAW isn't always non-contradictory.

Aren't there a multitude of screaming matches about that all over these forums?
Isn't that the core (as it were) of all the Core Books versus Splat Books versus Rules Compendium versus Errata arguments?

And above all that, you are still left with dealing with those elements of RAW that pretty much just say "make it up yourself", creating something between a Catch-22 and a zen koan:
"If it is RAW to houserule it, is your version a houserule or RAW?"

This is true. I already noted that we all play houseruled D&D in some way or another.

The entire context of what I said was pointing out to someone who claimed that RAI isn't houserules. I said that when it doesn't agree with RAW, that is exactly what it is...

...and now I have three different people telling me that RAI comes from different places, and that RAW doesn't always agree with itself, and that just because the FAQ can be wrong doesn't mean it always is. I never argued against any of those points.

[SorO_Lost]

...and you left out all the relevant parts of what I said in the rest of the post.

Yeah, but that's pretty much you on the rules in the first place so meh.

That is true... and none of those would be RAW. RAW would only be the actual texts and any official errata. The fact that RAI can come from any number of different sources is in no way a contradiction of what I said.

No, RAW would be when the official rules say. Your false premise of only certain sources are allowed is why your a failure.

Like what does RAW say? RAW says this.

ORDER OF RULES APPLICATION
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45).

So if A says B, C says D, and E says B interacts with D as F, it doesn't even matter what the A or C says to being with.

That is the Rules As Written, and branching form that point is a subjective opinion on the matter.

...and now I have three different people telling me that RAI comes from different places, and that RAW doesn't always agree with itself, and that just because the FAQ can be wrong doesn't mean it always is. I never argued against any of those points.

Sure you did, you just suck at it.

[RobbyPants]

Yeah, but that's pretty much you on the rules in the first place so meh.

...

That is true... and none of those would be RAW. RAW would only be the actual texts and any official errata. The fact that RAI can come from any number of different sources is in no way a contradiction of what I said.

No, RAW would be when the official rules say. Your false premise of only certain sources are allowed is why your a failure.

You mean "you're"?

Also... what sources did I say don't count as RAW? Please quote me on this before you put words in my mouth, because I think you're yet another person arguing against a stance I didn't make. I never said FAQ can't be RAW. If you feel this is in error... quote me on it.

Like what does RAW say? RAW says this.

ORDER OF RULES APPLICATION
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45).

So if A says B, C says D, and E says B interacts with D as F, it doesn't even matter what the A or C says to being with.

That is the Rules As Written, and branching form that point is a subjective opinion on the matter.

You're at least explaining yourself here, rather than insulting, so that's a plus...

...but you're responding to a strawman.

...and now I have three different people telling me that RAI comes from different places, and that RAW doesn't always agree with itself, and that just because the FAQ can be wrong doesn't mean it always is. I never argued against any of those points.

Sure you did, you just suck at it.

...



If you want to be taken seriously, respond to what I say and not your version of what you want me to say. I don't defend strawmen.

[oslecamo]

But the FAQ are a rules interpretation that are also written.

...

If you grant yourself the power to selectively ignore the written bits you don't like, then you're most definetely not following RAW.

Two things:

1) You're shifting the goal posts. I didn't mention the FAQ at all, so it's possible they could be taken into account.

The FAQ has been mentioned multiple times in this thread, and you'll mention it again right away. Just as planned.

2) FAQ rulings have a habit of being flat-out wrong, and they aren't considered errata. How are we to consider them when in direct contradiction of the texts? If they take precedent, then they would be the new RAW (and my point stands). If they do not supersede the rules texts and can only further explain, the old RAW is still the official rules (and my point stands).

You seem to be implying that the rules on the printed books never seem to contradict themselves in several places already. But they do, so that's not an obstacle for RAW.

The FAQ is still a list of answers. You may not like those answers and prefer your personal interpretation of the rules (and with enough english butchering, you can argue that anything actually means something else, like how several people argue that something being "familiar" means "something you've never met or heard or about before, I'm totally familiar with it, ignore the definition of familiar in other parts of the book"). But they're still wotc's official written answers. Again, you cannot cherry pick the bits you like and throw away the others without calling them houserules. Just like I said you would try to do.

Errata is for when you want to drastically change something that was pretty clear before, like time stop changing from an effect with a duration to an instantaneous effect so it wouldn't work with persist metamagic (and then plenty of players still ignore said errata anyway).

[Kaelik]

Hey Robby Pants, I think I figured it out.

You have a technical glitch in the system that displays all my posts as having been posted by you to everyone but you and me.

That's the only reason I can possibly imagine why so many people would continue stupidly lying about what you said again and again.

Or you know, they are lying dicks. But it's definitely one of those.

[faeryn]

Actually he specifically said "Is it RAI that isn't RAW? Then it's a houserule." So if FAQs are RAW, then he's not saying they aren't houserules, and if they aren't RAW, then he's saying they are houserules.

Am I the only one who caught this? You just literally claimed "If FAQ is RAW it's a houserule, and if FAQ isn't RAW it's a houserule."

"not saying they aren't houserules" is a double negative, you've literally just said "saying they are houserules"... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on an honest typing error... if that really is what it was... but that's honestly a bit suspicious... I really would hope your not trying to claim that it's a houserule regardless of if FAQ can or can't be considered RAW.

FAQ is a collection of rules clarifications and answers to questions left unanswered in the official rules. The FAQ is supposed to be RAI, though there are errors even in it. With how many sources of rules and rules conflicts there are within the official DnD sourcebooks it's to be expected that there will be mistakes and miscommunications on various rules even within WotC.

[Kaelik]

Actually he specifically said "Is it RAI that isn't RAW? Then it's a houserule." So if FAQs are RAW, then he's not saying they aren't houserules, and if they aren't RAW, then he's saying they are houserules.

Am I the only one who caught this? You just literally claimed "If FAQ is RAW it's a houserule, and if FAQ isn't RAW it's a houserule."

"not saying they aren't houserules" is a double negative, you've literally just said "saying they are houserules"... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on an honest typing error... if that really is what it was... but that's honestly a bit suspicious... I really would hope your not trying to claim that it's a houserule regardless of if FAQ can or can't be considered RAW.

Yeah it's really suspicious that my evidence completely contradicts the entire point of the post I made... Or you know, in the alternative, it is a typo, and you are a fucking troll who is doing that stupid "I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, then immediately say that I really think you are being deceptive on purpose in the same post!" bullshit.

[faeryn]

Actually he specifically said "Is it RAI that isn't RAW? Then it's a houserule." So if FAQs are RAW, then he's not saying they aren't houserules, and if they aren't RAW, then he's saying they are houserules.

Am I the only one who caught this? You just literally claimed "If FAQ is RAW it's a houserule, and if FAQ isn't RAW it's a houserule."

"not saying they aren't houserules" is a double negative, you've literally just said "saying they are houserules"... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on an honest typing error... if that really is what it was... but that's honestly a bit suspicious... I really would hope your not trying to claim that it's a houserule regardless of if FAQ can or can't be considered RAW.

Yeah it's really suspicious that my evidence completely contradicts the entire point of the post I made... Or you know, in the alternative, it is a typo, and you are a fucking troll who is doing that stupid "I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, then immediately say that I really think you are being deceptive on purpose in the same post!" bullshit.

No I said I hope that you are NOT trying to be deceptive on purpose. Do not misquote me, and I'm not trolling. All you needed to do was simply say "yes it was a typo" but instead of just doing that you continue to try and twist my words.

[Kaelik]

No I said I hope that you are NOT trying to be deceptive on purpose. Do not misquote me, and I'm not trolling. All you needed to do was simply say "yes it was a typo" but instead of just doing that you continue to try and twist my words.

You did exactly what I said you did:

1) Say you believed it was a typo.
2) Implied that it wasn't and I was being deceptive in the very next sentence.

That's not giving the benefit of the doubt, that's claiming to, and then making the accusation with deniability so that you can get all the character assassination with none of the work, like this:

"I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you aren't a stupid fucking idiot and that it was just an honest mistake, if that really is what it was... but that's honestly a bit suspicious...  that you repeatedly fail to understand what I'm saying."

[faeryn]

I said and I quote:

"not saying they aren't houserules" is a double negative, you've literally just said "saying they are houserules"... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on an honest typing error... if that really is what it was... but that's honestly a bit suspicious... I really would hope your not trying to claim that it's a houserule regardless of if FAQ can or can't be considered RAW.

Notice the last part... If I were to have said what you are claiming I said, then that would not be there... Yes I said it's suspicious, because it is given the arguments you have made prior. But I did state very clearly that I do honestly hope that it truly was just a typo and not an attempt at being deceptive.

Now please calm down and stop attacking me. I have approached this whole situation as a mature adult and would appreciate it if you would act in kind rather than attacking me and spewing profanity at me. I have not made any direct attacks against you, I have not insulted your intelligence (which you have done to me multiple times now), I have not trolled you in any way shape or form. I have stated my views, which happen to not agree with yours and attempted to have a mature debate despite your attacks against me.

[Kaelik]

I said and I quote:

"not saying they aren't houserules" is a double negative, you've literally just said "saying they are houserules"... I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on an honest typing error... if that really is what it was... but that's honestly a bit suspicious... I really would hope your not trying to claim that it's a houserule regardless of if FAQ can or can't be considered RAW.

Notice the last part... If I were to have said what you are claiming I said, then that would not be there... Yes I said it's suspicious, because it is given the arguments you have made prior. But I did state very clearly that I do honestly hope that it truly was just a typo and not an attempt at being deceptive.

Is English not your first language? Maybe that would explain? I don't know man, it's just really weird that you would say literally the exact words in that exact order with the exact punctuation that you would use to disingenuously imply that I did it on purpose, including, yes, those bolded words you used there, those bolded words which could not more clearly mean that you don't think it was a typo if you tried... if that really is what it was... but that's honestly a bit suspicious...

[Samwise]

Where did I say that RAI is only limited to player interpretation?

When you tried to exclude including the FAQ as a source.

That is true... and none of those would be RAW. RAW would only be the actual texts and any official errata. The fact that RAI can come from any number of different sources is in no way a contradiction of what I said.

Well . . . no.
They are the rules as written, just presented in a different, clearer, way.
Well, theoretically at least.
That people didn't "understand" the original text does not automatically mean that the original text does not mean precisely what the later clarification says it meants.

Again, this in no way contradicts what I originally said. I never said that RAW was always in agreement with itself. All I said is that if RAW and RAI aren't in agreement, then that makes RAI a houserule, by definition. You haven't refuted that. You've just said that RAI can come from a number of places and that RAW isn't always non-contradictory.

And that's the problem.
IF RAI is what the RAW should have been so everyone could have clearly understood it the first time, THEN it isn't really RAI at all, but RAW.
IF RAI isn't, but is instead some kludge because someone polled didn't actually like the original rule and decided to just make something up on his own, THEN it isn't actually RAI at all, but purely a houserule.

The problem in that case is that what people call RAI is really a conglomeration of "What I Think Is The RAI" (WITITRAI), "What The Writer/Editor Said Is The Rule As Intended" (WTW/ESAITRAI), and "What Someone Else Wants The Rule To Be So He Can Get Over" (WSEWTRTBSHCGO).

This is true. I already noted that we all play houseruled D&D in some way or another.

That ultimately means declaring what someone else presents is "just" RAI is really trying to reduce it to WSEWTRTBSHCGO, while reserving the houserules you present as WITITRAI, even if that means tossing WTW/ESAITRAI, and even RAW itself, out in the process.
That such declarations have no factual value themselves in resolving a disagreement means that even bringing it up is pretty much a fallacy in and of itself, and thus of no worth to the topic at hand.