D&D allows for great lattitude, but since an argument becomes circular once "I can change what I want according to RAW" is invoked, I found it helpful for me to define the different levels of rules and rulings. What I would like to do in this thread is give RAW its due, but also delineate where the game goes from RAW into Houserule and Homebrew.
1. RAW is the rules and settings as the books have been written -- with as close an approximation to the letter and spirit of the rules as possible. This includes the wiggle room due to poor text, bad syntax, and mismatched terminology. It also includes tweets and various posts which relate directly to the rules and settings. These are core principles which provide and protect game balance and immersion.
Obviously, RAW can be interpreted as either reality-based or rules-based -- neither of which do I find to be *better* than the other, but they are definably separate. For this thread, rules are intended not to simulate/replicate reality exactly, but to be a close approximation of how the rules apply to the world. In other words, perhaps falling damage aren't physicsly accurate, but they are an effort to replicate falling off a cliff. Because I view RAW as reality-based, it does not tolerate a "This happens because the rules don't say it doesn't." When rules are in question, it's totally fine to judge on the side of the player, or use the rule of cool -- but that is not my definition of RAW for this thread.
The glaring omission is the rule of cool and similar subjective rulings. I find those to be a RAW-variant, as they are simply an interpretation of the rules, or a handling of wiggle room. I suggest that "it happens because rules" logic replaces or complements my definition of RAW, without being considered a Houserule.
2. Houserule is a direct and deliberate change from RAW or its intent. This may be as simple as "We prefer longswords to do d20 damage" or changing how death and dying are handled. Per RAW, this is completely allowed -- but this is a departure from the rules.
3. Homebrew is something you bring in from any source outside of 5E and sanctioned sources. It would include updating old classes, using rules and worlds you've made up, and that sort of thing. Although Houserule really could step into this category, Homebrew is more about adding a completely new element to the game, as opposing to adjusting how RAW is handled.
I don't know if this is an interesting topic or not... I've just seen the term "houseruling" used as a sort of insult in certain discussions, and so many "That's not RAW" comments that I thought this would help. Personally, I find all three levels of rulings listed here as being necessary to the game as a whole. All three are guided by the pick-and-choose nature of the game, and are promoted by the collaborative nature of a group.
Happy 2015!
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orcs are relatively cool in Eberron. :-)
My personal take is that the rules are attempting to define a reality. That reality may or may not bear much resemblance to our reality in various different instances. But the primary goal as I see it would be to try to keep the rules and the reality they are defining as internally consistent as possible while still having a game that is fun and easy to play. Depending on how well the RAW does that to begin with there may be more or less of a need for "House Rules" to try to straighten things out.
From my (arguably obnoxious to some) perspective, the "Rule of Cool" appears to be not so much a rule as an excuse to break rules. If one already has a set of rules that do a reasonable job of defining the reality in a consistent and playable manner, then breaking those rules in order to be "cool" could prove to be counterproductive over the long term. Granted that everybody wants to have fun, but I think that at least part of that is figuring out how to accomplish what you need to get done within the limitations of the rules.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Cutlass wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
IME, the term 'house rules' implies a *change* to the rules as written.
So what do we call a consistent interpretation of a rule that does not specifically cover the situation.
As you brought up... the RAW does not say you need two hands to reload a handbow, the rules also do not say you can do it with one. Picking either side is a kind of 'house rule'....since it is how the rule will work at that house. But neither one contradicts RAW..... so....
(For the sake of the discussion, lets please ignore if you think one way or the other follows/breaks RAW.... its just an example for purposes of discussion)
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
So.... lets say I create a list of.... ways I am interpreting the grey areas in the RAW, or ways I am filling in the gaps not completely covered by RAW. (Hiding, handbows, multi attack, memorizing spells, whatever)
What do we call that list?
I am not changing the rules, nothing on the list breaks RAW..... so what do we call it?
considering that the examples you just gave aren't even considered to be gray areas by everyone and are more your own opinion of gray areas within the rules text.. I would qualify them as your houserules since you are, based on your previous posts here and elsewhere, modifying rules text to suit your vision of what is overpowered/common sense/etc.. And yes, many of your statements when it comes to these game elements often break what the RAW within the book is.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I'll add that, while I don't like the term homebrew and any alteration of the RAW could be considered a house rule, I generally agree with the definitions as laid out in the OP. The three types of rules could just as easily be termed puppies, bunnies, and kitties for all I care.
Whatever the terms, I mentally put all rules into three lists - the rules out of the book as best as I can interpret them (long sword does 1d8/1d10 damage (two-handed), alterations of the rules in the books (long sword does 3d12 because the 12 sider needs more love!), or new rules in addition to ones on the books (here's my stats for an arming sword!)
As a DM, I expect the players to adhere to what we are calling RAW. Also, as a DM, a player is far more likely to get a homebrew rule past me than a house rule as it adds to instead alters rules.
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
randl wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
It seems like a pretty straight-forward distinction, to me.
1) RAW is what is printed in the books. No more, no less.
2) House rules are changes or additions you've made at your table.
3) Home brew is a subcategory of house rules, in that they are additions you've made at your table that are more or less Original Content. "New" is the keyword for home brew, but I think all "home brews" are also "house rules", based on the broader definition of "house rules".
DungeonKrusher wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
[quote="OoftaMeg"]
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
[quote="Noctaem"]
...
Bows in game have nothing to do with bows in real life. Which parts of the bow are you talking about that are silent in game? You should elaborate your statement.
...
[quote]
The rules in the book for the bow override two very specific attributes, weight and effective distance.
They say nothing about how a bow is used or any of it's other general properties.
Yet the override of the two attributes is used to justify the statement "bows in game have nothing to do with real life bows". I don't see it. What text am I missing?
I was trying to avoid the whole bow argument, but it's a very simple example of where ya'll go off the rails. I know that in order to fire a bow I hold the bow in my left hand (because I'm right handed) while I draw an arrow with my right hand, nock the arrow, pull back the string aim and release.
What part of the RAW overrides any of that?
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
randl wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
randl wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
randl wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
randl wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Once again, we are circling the drain towards the never-ending-pointless hand crossbow argument. 
I really don't want to do that again, I had enough of that and summarized my thoughts over here: http://community.wizards.com/forum/rules-questions/threads/4163911
The only point I'm trying to make is that the rules are silent on a great many things. Like whether your character has a head. Or eyes. Or hands. Whether drawing ammunition requires a hand or not.
Now, if you want to say that my requiring a hand to draw ammunition is a house rule that's fine. I would then claim that your ruling that you do not need a hand is also a house rule. 
Why? Because the rules are silent on whether you need a hand to draw ammunition, just like their silent on whether you need legs to walk or a mouth to speak. Some things are just assumed by the devs and it's up to DMs to fill in the blanks.
Orethalion wrote:
randl wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
randl wrote:
It is kinda amazing how when ever people like noctaem comment any part of the rules they disagree with become fluff and do not matter, but the parts of the rules they want to twist and link are the only parts that are raw.
They conveniently ignore the entire words written for amunition and loading and simply change it to say a weapon is always loaded, which is clearly not RAW. Not only this but when you ask them to provide a exact example of the text supporting their position they come back with a BS statment of "I have posted it multiple times" which is clearly a lie or they could post the exact text like you ask for.
In short RAW is loose and flexible in this edition. You can not claim to be playing RAW unless you can quote the exact text that says exactly what you are claiming.
If you do make this type of claim and you can not back it up you are a lier and should just be ignored as you can not provide any actual facts that back up your statments.
Crossbow expert does not ever say you can wield two hand crossbows. No rule anywhare in the actual rule book does.
People are infering that the light property means you can dual wield. This is a lie.
Dual wielding or two weapon fighting is the exact same thing and there is only one section on it. It clearly states that you can do so with a melee or thrown weapon.
The only other areas dealing with this are a feat and a coulple of class features that give exact rules for what they do, which is also linked back to the basic rule of two weapon fighting.
It at no point says you can do so with a hand crossbow.
If it did clearly say it then you would have no discussion on it as there would be a page number and rules text that you could quote.
There fore it is not RAW that you can. If it was RAW then you could quote the EXACT text and EXACT PAGE where it says you can and what the rules for doing so are.
Orethalion wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Dregoth1 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Is whether or not you need a hand to load a crossbow explicity spelled out in the rules one way or the other? I've made my logic behind my ruling known but no, it's not.
So is the answer (one way or another) RAW? House Rule? DM clarification? Rules as Interpreted?
I don't really care, just don't claim that your ruling is RAW while the other side is a violation of RAW when the rules are not explicit.
When I'm playing or judging, as long as the interpretation of the rules are consistent and fair I'm happy.
The alternative to having "holes" in the rule where the devs rely on DM common sense resulting in some variation of rulings at different tables is the path 3.5/Pathfinder went down. It's a very finicky, rules-heavy approach that inevitably needs constant tweaking because of the contradictions in an ever-more complex system.
CahPahkah wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
randl wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
I would still call it RAW. I know the issue some people have is that it requires adding information or filling in the blanks, but I think that's a part of the game's design. I believe there is wiggle room built in so that somebody can play a bow as a widget that has limited shots and certain requirements, that's fine! And if I want to play it as an actual bow that I interact with like a real bow, that's cool, too! The rules support [an attempt at] a realistic version of what we know a bow is, so when I read reloading, it's RAW to me that it means you use your hand, even if a hand isn't specified in the exact text.
Macv12 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
[quote="DungeonKrusher"]
...
If it boils down to somebody saying that RAW is only as written, doesn't that imply that nothing can be added to the rules? My definition of RAW allows that. Using even the example of what was given to me with the sling: there's nothing that describes how a sling is loaded, and it only says that it must be loaded when used in melee. Honest! This is the only mention of loading a sling:
"Ammunition. You can use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a ranged attack only if you have ammunition to fire from the weapon. Each time you attack with the weapon, you expend one piece of ammunition. Drawing the ammunition from a quiver, case, or other container is part of the attack. At the end of the battle, you can recover half your expended ammunition by taking a minute to search the battlefield.
If you use a weapon that has the ammunition property to make a melee attack, you treat the weapon as an improvised weapon (see “Improvised Weapons” later in the section). A sling must be loaded to deal any damage when used in this way."
It seems odd to have an issue with me suggesting RAW uses phrases like "draw ammunition" and "expend one piece of ammunition" to relay that we pull out a bullet or stone from its container, put that in the sling pocket, whirl it, and fire it at an enemy during an Attack action. Yet RAW doesn't say that, and apparently it would be *wrong* of me to tell somebody that's how a sling and ammo works.
There are people who call the majority of what I said "fluff" and that the beginning, middle, and end is that you have a sling, and with an Attack action, one piece of ammo is erased. And they're right! That's the end result, to be sure. I simply don't narrow D&D down to those terms.
/quote]
Ahh, DungeonKrusher haven't you figured out how exception based game systems work yet? The rules are the rules except when you don't agree with them. Then they're irrelevant fluff. So the rule that requires drawing ammunition is just "fluff". Like gravity, or the presence of an atmosphere or that in order to draw ammunition you need to physically pull the ammuntion out of the container (usually) using a hand.
You know, all those things that obviously we take for granted that the fantasy world works like the real world ... except when they don't because you don't want it to even when it's not explicitly overridden by the rules (fireballs, dragons, et al).
I've been thinking about this, and I think I agree with DungeonKrusher. RAW overrides weight and range for bows. All other properties work like real world bows because there are no explicit rules that override those properties. Therefore requiring the use of a hand to draw ammunition is RAW.
After all, that's how exception based rules systems work.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Good goddess, does this thread advance fast. I'll have to apologize and excuse myself for not replying to everything that deserves replying to.
About gravity, because that's what we're apparently talking about now. If you don't want to call gravity a "house rule," then you need to use a new term, because it isn't "RAW." You can't just define a couple categories, then use process of elimination to cram something into the definition of RAW that doesn't belong there.
Various people keep dragging the conversation back to this point they want so badly to defend, that no one runs a pure-RAW game, you have to house rule here and there, you have to interpret, etc. That point has never been attacked. The point of disagreement is over the definition of Rules As Written, and when someone may justifiably say "this answer is RAW, that answer goes beyond RAW." If something isn't in the book, it just isn't RAW.
I don't see what the problem is with that. Is that a sin? That you include gravity, or details that uncontroversially fit the definition of a "sling?" Why isn't that good enough? Why do you have to take the further step of earning a "Justifiable by RAW!" badge for your ruling? Just rule the way you want. But don't then take a ruling you made up because it makes sense in your personal opinion, and go quoting it to people like "this is what the book says to do." That's lying. If they want to know what the book says, tell them what it says. If they want an opinion about a sensible or realistic ruling, tell them your opinion. But don't get your chocolate on my peanut butter.
The idea that you can't talk about RAW except to quote the book is just nonsense, and if I were to be uncharitable, a strawman. But even if that were the case, that still doesn't give you the wiggle room to freely redefine Rules As Written as "the rules written in the book, plus whatever I think a reasonable person would add to the book that isn't written." If the rules as written allow some wonky things, too bad. That doesn't change definitions. Now you could make the case that "you should also apply XYZ on top of what's in the book" (gravity being a prime candidate, though I'm sure everyone would agree that the book STRONGLY implies the existence of gravity through jumping rules, falling damage, the Fly spell, etc). That's a perfectly valid and interesting conversation to have. But you don't get to call your personal adjudications "RAW."
OoftaMeg wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Then please define these simple terms using only what it in the book
Long bow
Lantern
Light
fire
air
water
helmet
clothing
armor
walk
run
one
question
talk
health
stamina
perhaps you still don't get it ...
How about you define these words using only what is in the book
A
and
the
of
are
You can not do so. You must bring in outside informaiton which is your basic understanding of the spoken and written language. So you can not play RAW if you brin in this out side source using your patheticly narow minded definition. You must be able to use simple logic and understanding of the language and must interpret the words which includes your basic simple understanding of the world. As such Gravity and Air are not excluded. They are part of the basic understanding of the worly. The game creates and exception for every deviation from this.
A bow is a bow as exists in our world. The range it can shoot and the way it is used are included in the game just by using the word bow. We know characters need to breathe air. We know that there are rules for drowning wich alter the real world mechanics of drowning and replace the times it takes to drown. We know there is gravity we know that the real world effects of falling have been replaced by the specific rules governing falling damage.
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
iserith wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
iserith wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I just think it's funny that people say with a straight face that gravity or hands, or water, or buildings, or grass, or trees or even freakin' butterflies (I mean what kind of monster would have a campaign where butterflies don't exist!) ... are all "house rules". 
So fine ... the vast majority of time in game is interacting with a world that is based on house rules. Basically the phrase house rule has no meaning.
An example "Your characters approach the broken-down cottage. The meadow is silent except for the sound of birds and the rustling of wind in the lone tree in front of the building. As you get closer you hear sounds of growling through broken windows. Drawing your sword from your scabbard you kick open the door and see a handful of kobolds looting the kitchen."
What part of that is RAW? Characters are defined, as are swords and kobolds. Cottages, trees, scabbards, doors, kicking a door, the foot you kicked the door in with, not RAW. Everything else is a "house rule". In my opinion if you take your logic to that extreme then "house rule" has lost all meaning.
Or you could just accept that D&D is an exception based rules system with the assumption of a world roughly based on our own. Like it says in the PHB.
Don't get me wrong, I try to make a distinction between "this is what the rules say" and "this is why I rule this way". I just get tired of the "It's not RAW, therefore you are wrong" argument.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
iserith wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
iserith wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Noctaem wrote:
Five pages and an actual rules question still hasn't popped up.
Ganymede425 wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Grison wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
iserith wrote:
Grison wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Grison wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Rules don't adjudicate - DMs do. They can do so based upon rules, logic, realism, Rule of Cool, or whatever the flumph they want (and is hopefully appropriate to the table's social contract).
You can't argue whether something is RAW or not. If it's in the book, it's RAW. If it's not in the book, it's not RAW. The explicit rules text is RAW, nothing more, nothing less.
You can't argue whether someone's ruling by itself is right or wrong. It basically sits in the same space as preferences. So you might not like someone's ruling. That's fair enough. But a ruling isn't RAW and RAW can't be used to knock down someone's ruling unless the argument is about which ruling is more closely based on RAW...
...And that's a stupid, unproductive argument to have anyway.
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
iserith wrote:
The two weapon fighting rules specify melee weapons anyway, so you couldn't use two hand crossbows even if you wanted to.
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Ganymede425 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Grison wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Grison wrote:
iserith wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Grison wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
iserith wrote:
Man, I wake up and the topic is 70 posts longer again. Someone should houserule time zones out of reality, they just bog the game down.
Sorry to make a scattered and long post. Better than posting back-to-back I find, keeps the page count from inflating. (YES I AM PASSIVE-AGGRESSIVELY DROPPING HINTS)
My stance is less about EXACTLY what's in the book, and more about what we are reading in the book. When we see the written word, anybody with comprehension will apply that comprehension. I don't believe that's wrong. I think you can argue the same grey rule and one side may see the other, or it may not. But it's still in the book, and we're still using the rules as we read them.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
iserith wrote:
I know what you mean about the lengths. I hope you don't mind in-quote replies?
Macv12 wrote:
iserith wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
The problem I have with the term RAW is that if it's truly meant to only refer to the printed text in the books, that it is used as a means to end all further discussion. RAW SAYS X so there can be no interpretation of the written word.
RAW does make sense in a very, very narrow sense. Shortswords do 1d6 piercing damage.
In another example I can reference the fact that bows have the ammunition property which includes drawing ammunition. I personally conclude you have to be physically capable of drawing ammunition which means you have to have the quiver close at hand and have a hand to draw it. Otherwise you couldn't actually draw the ammunition.
I believe you have to read the words and interpret them, that some sense of context (what does the word drawing mean?) is required. If RAW cannot include the common definition of the words written in the book then RAW is pointless.
Then you get people like noctaem that say that hands and proximity are not specifically spelled out and therefore any requirement for them is a HOUSE RULE OF DOOOOOOM! Oh and since gravity is not in the rulebook, gravity is not part of the game unless it's a house rule.
So I've decided to make a solemn oath.
I, OoftaMeg do solemnly swear that I will not use the term RAW since it is really a code word that says my ruling is correct and any other opinion is wrong. I will quote rules, I will give my ruling, I will give my reasons. So help me Gary Gygax.
Macv12 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
If the definition of RAW is that you refer to the rules and only the rules, I don't think RAW is a very useful term.
For example, according to the rules state:
High Jump. When you make a high jump, you leap into the air a number of feet equal to 3 + your Strength modifier if you move at least 10 feet on foot immediately before the jump. When you make a standing high jump, you can jump only half that distance. Either way, each foot you clear on the jump costs a foot of movement.
Nothing in the rules states what happens after you hit the apex of my jump. If gravity is a house rule, then without house rules you just float in air after your jump.
But that's what you get if you literally only refer to the rules in the book. Anything else is not RAW. In addition, if you declare that gravity is a house rule, then the term "house rule" is also so broad that it has no meaning.
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Kalissa_Marshall wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
I've asked you to stop. So just stop. Thank you.
Noctaem wrote:
There are certainly some things in game where the names of them (spells, abilities, feats, etc.) don't have to have any bearing on what the words actually mean, although spells that don't have effects related to their names would be a bit boring.
What I'm getting at is that you could just as easily name the fighting styles Fighting Style 1, Fighting Style 2, etc. and it wouldn't make a whit of difference as to what the effect is. The fact that the Dueing fighting style may conjure up fighting with a weapon in one hand and no shield but you can still use a shield with it. Or that (to me at least) Archery implies bows and crossbows but the Archery fighting style can be used with nets, darts, and slings. One of the benefits of the Crossbow Expert feat works with all ranged attacks (even spells!) and not just crossbows.
On the other hand, certain things do have real world analogs and can rely on knowing how they work and look in real life to fill in the blanks in the rule book. Blanks that are thankfully there or the rules would be endless.
@DungeonKrusher
You're focusing completely on only one aspect of the offending post (the bow thing), which is only one post in a slew of them over the course of a long period of time. Don't you understand how this person constantly mirepresenting what others say is offensive? (Bloodscythe is just as guilty of this) How having to constantly tell this person "No I never said that" or "You're taking what I've said about specific discussion topics out of context" is incredibly annoying? I'm done putting up with it and with your Mr White Knight routine as well. I'm asking that this person immediately stop putting words in my mouth and/or immediately stop misquoting/mirepresenting/strawmaning what I say or have said on this and other forums in the past present or future. I have the right to ask that just like anyone else. And if our positions were reversed DungeonKrusher I wouldn't be defending the offending party. In fact I would agree with you and ask this person to stop. But you're not that kind of person are you?
This person can either use the quote button like you did to actually properly quote people or ask questions. For example, instead of saying Noctem believes X or has said Y, they should either quote the passages directly which is easy to do or ask a question. Noc, do you believe X? Noc, would you say Y? Noc do you only use RAW in your games?
For instance that last one since this person should have asked in the first place and not spoken for me, the answer is a resounding NO! Continued by "I have never said that anywhere at any time to anyone and I would further say that it's actually completely IMPOSSIBLE to play by RAW alone as basically everyone else has said when asked."
So no I won't get over it. This is a rampant problem on this forum and someone has to draw the damn line. And your white knight routine is getting tiring, you defended Coredump when he was making personal attacks against people without actually reading what he was posting for example. So if you don't understand where I'm coming from, mind your own business.
Noctaem wrote:
I'm not defending myself. You missed the entire point of my posts apparently. I'm asking someone to stop a behavior that I do not appreciate nor find respectful because it causes confusion and forces me and others to stop a discussion and directly address someone because of it. And I don't think anyone would appreciate what this person has been doing or anyone else who does the same thing. And yes, I did bring up Bloodscythe because within the last 24 hours he's participated in a discussion in the 'adjudicate this' thread where he was called out repeatedly for doing EXACTLY what I'm talking about here.
And perhaps this antagonistic behavior as you call it is directly related to the posts of people like you who make sarcastic or snide remarks or even personal attacks in the first place. I LOVE the fact that you point out the "get over it" comment when it was directed at you for trying to fault me FOR AGREEING WITH SOMEONES COMMENT. Notice again that you didn't quote the person I agreed with and still fail to do so. That's what that get over it comment was directed to. Your comment to me for agreeing with someone. Do you not even realize that? I told you to get over it because you accused me of having some kind of "agenda" just because I agreed with someone else. I mean what hell is that even about? Am I super villain and have some evil agenda now just because I agree with another poster on the forum? and yeah, I type "lol" to represent "laughing out loud". And yes, I play games like the vast majority of people on the continent but I guess you just had to throw that "gamer term" label on there? To what end? Trying to make yourself feel better by trying to belittle me? Have you painted me in your mind as some nerdy cartoon figure with glasses and braces so you can feel better that you just defended some vulnerable maiden on the internet?
And you know what, you very often "white knight" into discussions to defend someone when you seem to have no idea what the discussion is about. You came into a discussion that had progressed to the point that Coredump was making personal attacks against others because he apparently could no longer explain his point of view or decided he no longer wanted to make constructive posts. You DEFENDED his personal attacks against others! You had no idea what he was doing and yet you defended him. That's what "white knighting" into discussions is in case you didn't know. And honestly, it feels to me like you just did it again though on a lesser scale. You're defending someone who constantly misrepresents what others are saying or tries to speak for them or takes their statements out of context. Multiple people have asked this person to STOP and yet they don't. Fine, jump to the rescue, but my earlier post was not directed to you.
I don't want you to defend me. (And by the way you're the one bringing up defend, which I can only assume you see some sort of "attack" which needs to be defended against?) It is so patronizing and arrogant though that you would even say that. I've never asked you to do so and I never will. I can speak for myself and I would hope others on this forum can as well. We don't need you to fly to our rescue and defend us on the interwebs. And for the record I'm the one who seems to get poked as you put it. I mean I even had a guy make a new account just to make a big post full of personal attacks against me and then change his signature to do the same thing calling me the "denyer of reality". Or Coredump who posts personal attacks against me on a daily basis when he's not time banned. But even then, I'm not victimizing myself, Coredump can make all the personal attacks he wants, he's just a random person on the internet who's angry. I don't care about him and all he's doing is getting the attention of the mods in the process. But I have the right to tell someone not to speak for me.
Noctaem wrote:
Your question has already been addressed, the fact that you keep asking it like if it hasn't been (just like all the other questions you tend to ask as if they create a convincing argument) is irrelevant. The entire premise of your question is flawed, no one believes what you're basing your question on. No one has claimed that you can run a campaign only using RAW, no one has said they only use RAW in their campaigns. This is the same kind of stuff as stating "the dm is the arbiter at the table", well no ****.
So to reiterate, DO NOT speak for me. DO NOT paraphrase me incorrectly to answer someone elses question while doing so to claim I believe or have said something I do not or have not said. In fact, DO NOT include me in your posts if at all possible. It's not hard, try it.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Whoo! This is fun. Is everyone having fun? Happy New Year, by the way. 
Back to work!
First, Macv12, thanks for a considered, polite response. I try to keep my responses civil, but I know my attempts at keeping things light-hearted may not come off like that.
I was thinking about it this morning and I think the biggest problem I have with the definition of RAW and house rules that 
and some other people on this board is that what they claim are house rules are really basic game assumptions.
Gravity is used to make rulings in 100% of games*. If you jump, you fall back to the ground because gravity sucks. You can't run a game without it.
An assumption/rule that is used in 100% of games cannot be a "house rule" because by definition house rules change from house to house. Gravity does not qualify.
If gravity is not a house rule then the statement everything not in the rule books (RAW) is a house rule or home brew cannot be correct.
*unless clearly spelled out otherwise, as in "I'm going to run a game in space where gravity does not apply". In addition, gravity is not 100% accurately modeled in the D&D game because the falling rules don't specify terminal velocity, etc. Also, gravity does not have to be strictly newtonian but it will still be an approximation of real world gravity. Magic and other game rules can of course override the effects of gravity.
The existence, function, and any adjudications based upon how gravity works is a ruling. Gravity is a rule because there is no text that defines it even though there are rules for jumping, falling, and the reverse gravity spell.
It sounds as if the real objection is calling someone's ruling a "house rule" because some posters use that as a club. So just call it a "ruling." Rules or ruling. Simple, elegant, non-inflammatory.
iserith wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
iserith wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
iserith wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
ModusPonens wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Macv12 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
iserith wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
But is that RAW is written, RAW as intended, or RAI as written 
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I think what I am confused by is: How can someone insist that things like gravity are houserules and then insist on answering all rules questions by RAW only? Honest question? Can anyone help my understand this?
IMO. RAW + gravity is a better approach. And better than RAW + gravity is an approach that includes RAW and gravity and other things common to most DND games. RAW is not enough. Even the RAW purists agree with that. So why are we all stuck answering questions by only RAW?
OoftaMeg wrote:
FrogReaver wrote: