Even if you count those instances of interpretation above as still playing a RAW game, there are also instances where RAW and logic collide, such as two blinded creatures making attacks against each other without advantage/disadvantage (RAW per the rules, but it doesn't make any sense logically).
Or speed of sound Monks.
And finally, playing 100% of RAW creates an awful lot to either trust your players with, or for the DM to track. It would be slow and mentally exhausting to keep up over any length of time.
Yeah, like who tracks coin encumbrance? Yeah, if they find a cache of trunks full of silver, I'm not going to let them carry all of it out of the dungeon, but I'm not going to make them re-tabulate their total carried weight every time they spend a silver in a tavern.
Even if you count those instances of interpretation above as still playing a RAW game, there are also instances where RAW and logic collide, such as two blinded creatures making attacks against each other without advantage/disadvantage (RAW per the rules, but it doesn't make any sense logically).
Or speed of sound Monks.
And finally, playing 100% of RAW creates an awful lot to either trust your players with, or for the DM to track. It would be slow and mentally exhausting to keep up over any length of time.
Yeah, like who tracks coin encumbrance? Yeah, if they find a cache of trunks full of silver, I'm not going to let them carry all of it out of the dungeon, but I'm not going to make them re-tabulate their total carried weight every time they spend a silver in a tavern.
Who tracks coin encumbrance? I do. So does the DM in my current game. See post I made some hours ago. And for the record, no self-respecting dragon, or troll, or Ogre (aka the DM) neatly segregates coins in their trove. They don't stroll into town and say "I would like to buy a number of water and mold proof containers that can handle the stress of holding coins for years, decades, or centuries, that will be lying around in very likely damp caves, or other non-optimal conditions."
When players spend silver in town, I have them mark off how much they have on their person. And typically, as their personal finances grow, they end up going to money changers, pay some kind of premium, and convert coin into platinum and gems. That is the kind of game I run. None of my players are running around with 1000 coins combined denomination.
My Rogue I am playing has 20 platinum, 5 gems @ 100 GP each, and 81 GP on his person. He has enough encumbrance concerns without worrying about being weighed down by coin.
You're welcome to do that if your group enjoys that kind of experience. Hey, I'm not one to talk. The party in my game has their own accountant, lawyer, bank account and mortgage. But like food and water on wilderness travel or tracking ammo supply, it requires spending session time and energy to track, so it's not worth it unless it's a limiting factor.
Have you ever looked at the Rules & Game Mechanics forum? Even for people who know the rules as well as anyone it’s impossible to follow all RAW perfectly because it’s impossible to agree on them.
Have you ever looked at the Rules & Game Mechanics forum? Even for people who know the rules as well as anyone it’s impossible to follow all RAW perfectly because it’s impossible to agree on them.
Especially when the rules disagree with themselves in multiple places.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Was wondering if anyone has ever been able to play 100% RAW. Seems impossible to know every intricate detail, but I imagine somebody has tried before. Any success? Did it improve the gameplay in anyway?
Depends on what your definition is. Sometimes the RAW contradicts itself, and sometimes it's missing. If you're allowed to cherry-pick which RAW to follow while still qualifying, and if you're allowed to fill in the gaps as you see fit, and if you're allowed to interpret vague or ambiguous rules freely, then yes, it's possible to play 100% RAW.
But an easy example of this going pear-shaped in a hurry is the mounted combat rules. That needs all three above, and in spades.
Mounted combat is so complex. What reach do you have to and from a medium creature mounted on a large creature? If the player doesn't directly control the mount, the mount has movement and action, but who controls its movement? It should probably be the DM, but I don't think it's explicitly stated? Should you factor the mount's intelligence when deciding it it moves helpfully or randomly or fearfully?
I'm curious how the 100% RAW inspection/accreditation process works :)
Even real lawyers who pass the bar exam don't know every statute on the books. Much less rules lawyers.
While some think rules lawyering arguments are similar to actual legal arguments, actual law isn't really a good analog to game systems. Unless there really is a sanctioning body / DM Bar association to hold the 100% RAW games to the 100% RAW standard. Like do the pop in and audit a few rounds of combat, review Wish usage, etc? Also what happens when the law changes or liberalizes (a la XGtE and TCoE)? Are player agency advocates like the 100% RAW movements' ACLU or National Lawyers Guild?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm curious how the 100% RAW inspection/accreditation process works :)
Even real lawyers who pass the bar exam don't know every statute on the books. Much less rules lawyers.
While some think rules lawyering arguments are similar to actual legal arguments, actual law isn't really a good analog to game systems. Unless there really is a sanctioning body / DM Bar association to hold the 100% RAW games to the 100% RAW standard. Like do the pop in and audit a few rounds of combat, review Wish usage, etc? Also what happens when the law changes or liberalizes (a la XGtE and TCoE)? Are player agency advocates like the 100% RAW movements' ACLU or National Lawyers Guild?
Yeah, the bar is not just an exam. Your conduct is under scrutiny and you can be disbarred if you fudge rolls.
And don't get me started on some Fighter who is carrying into a Dungeon 3 Javelins, a Two-Handed Sword, Long Sword, a Short Bow, at least one Quiver of arrows, a Shield, and a Knapsack, plus a Cloak of Protection, all the while having two hands free to climb a rope.
I mean, if they have a two-handed sword they likely have considerable Str and the encumbrance rules aren't going to stop them.
You are missing the point. Can they carry all that weight? Sure, no question there. That is RAW.
But further to my above comment, this is where RAW does not go far enough. There is zero chance for any Medium creature to have all that placed on their back. There is simply not enough surface area. Encumbance should cover area, as well, not just weight. But the majority of players and DM's handwave or simply ignore that. Players keep talking about roleplaying and immersion, but if it gets complicated, or they don't like the results, they ditch it in a second. Roleplaying your char does not only include interactions with sentient beings, but also the physical world.
Your not carrying enough with 6 weapons a shield and a backpack.. nevermind surface area its not like the shield can't go OVER their greatsword bow n quiver
Folks, bringing a two handed sword or a battle ax, or a weapon and shield combo into a dungeon, basically conditions which constitute what in modern terms is called close quarters battle, wouldn't be a good idea either on the sort of realism grounds I think we're digressing into (conversation is about RAW not does encumbrance work?). To circle back to RAW encumbrance is listed as a _variant_ in the rules. Probably why it's toggled in the RAW fidelity DDB toolset.
As for the digression, I think we can grant that folks including the game designers or at least the foundational mechanics they've inherited don't have a well grounded understanding (or inherited a legacy of not the most grounded understanding) of human performance, carrying capacity vs combat or tactical load capacity (and how to carry gear that allows you to drop the encumbering bulk when you need to move with your tactical load out). Other games, usually going for a gritty modern realistic mode, do a better job of it, but per this thread we're left with RAW if we want the 100% RAW lapel pin and whatever perks belonging to the 100% RAW bar association entails. Someone needs to build a 100% RAW BAR cult in Adohand's Kitchen.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't think anything more complex than what we have was ever really considered. That goes specifically for encumbrance, but for a lot of other mechanics as well. Those are the RAW because that's how they were designed, not because of any desire for realism or out of a deep understanding of human physiology.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So. The rules are there to provide a framework around which you base the game, but also to give the players reasonable expectations about what will happen when they make choices in the game.
When the DM designs a new trap - let's say it's a Dex saving throw to avoid it, or take 4d12 radiant damage - how is this RAW? It's something the DM invented. When the DM roleplays any NPC in the game, they're making it up without any RAW coming into play. The rules are frameworks, and playing rigidly to RAW will always make your game inferior.
The game is better when you meet the players' expectations, and then allow rule of cool to override them whenever it's good to do so. Here's an example:
At level 2, my PCs were fighting a silver statue that rose out of a hole in a frozen lake. The rogue asked if he could skid across the ice to attack it. I told him that yes, he can try - make an acrobatics check. On succeeding, he skidded across the ice and dealt an additional 1d8 points of force damage for the success. Disallowing this option would have been less fun for everyone and the players loved it.
Where breaking away from the RAW rules is problematic however is when a player has an expectation - for instance, their class ability or spell text states something specific - and the DM decides to change it in a way that is non-favourable for the player. At that point, the DM has abandoned the framework, and the player feels that their decisions are no longer controllable because the outcome of what will happen becomes unreliable.
At level 2, my PCs were fighting a silver statue that rose out of a hole in a frozen lake. The rogue asked if he could skid across the ice to attack it. I told him that yes, he can try - make an acrobatics check. On succeeding, he skidded across the ice and dealt an additional 1d8 points of force damage for the success. Disallowing this option would have been less fun for everyone and the players loved it.
If there were a section in the DMG that describes how to adjudicate additional sliding damage, it would probably be good to use it, since it would be well balanced and consistent with players' expectations if they've done it in RAW games run by other DMs.
Since there are probably many scenarios in the rules that I have forgotten about, it's possible I have improvised rulings on certain player actions in the past that actually have official guidance. In that case, learning the RAW would help improve my game. Although I think my game will be just fine if I use the occasional improvised ruling.
At level 2, my PCs were fighting a silver statue that rose out of a hole in a frozen lake. The rogue asked if he could skid across the ice to attack it. I told him that yes, he can try - make an acrobatics check. On succeeding, he skidded across the ice and dealt an additional 1d8 points of force damage for the success. Disallowing this option would have been less fun for everyone and the players loved it.
If there were a section in the DMG that describes how to adjudicate additional sliding damage, it would probably be good to use it, since it would be well balanced and consistent with players' expectations if they've done it in RAW games run by other DMs.
Since there are probably many scenarios in the rules that I have forgotten about, it's possible I have improvised rulings on certain player actions in the past that actually have official guidance. In that case, learning the RAW would help improve my game. Although I think my game will be just fine if I use the occasional improvised ruling.
A game like D&D really wouldn't benefit from a rules section on sliding damage. For one, it's actually quite illogical (you would slow down, it wouldn't actually make you hit harder haha) but also, this is the only time any of my players have tried to do an ice sliding attack in the 24 years I've been DM'ing for. Also, how do the rules determine consistently if the terrain allows sliding attacks to work? Is there a gradient required? Why don't I just get this same bonus for attacking when charging on a mount, which makes me move much faster?
A one off incident, in which an extra 1d8 of damage is hardly game breaking, definitely does not need official rules.
This game was never meant to be played with rigid adherence to the rules. It's literally in the first few pages of the 5e DM's Guide.
DM's Guide, Page 4: As a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them... The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge.
So, RAW, the rules are intended to be modified whenever the DM sees fit.
At level 2, my PCs were fighting a silver statue that rose out of a hole in a frozen lake. The rogue asked if he could skid across the ice to attack it. I told him that yes, he can try - make an acrobatics check. On succeeding, he skidded across the ice and dealt an additional 1d8 points of force damage for the success. Disallowing this option would have been less fun for everyone and the players loved it.
If there were a section in the DMG that describes how to adjudicate additional sliding damage, it would probably be good to use it, since it would be well balanced and consistent with players' expectations if they've done it in RAW games run by other DMs.
Since there are probably many scenarios in the rules that I have forgotten about, it's possible I have improvised rulings on certain player actions in the past that actually have official guidance. In that case, learning the RAW would help improve my game. Although I think my game will be just fine if I use the occasional improvised ruling.
A game like D&D really wouldn't benefit from a rules section on sliding damage. For one, it's actually quite illogical (you would slow down, it wouldn't actually make you hit harder haha) but also, this is the only time any of my players have tried to do an ice sliding attack in the 24 years I've been DM'ing for. Also, how do the rules determine consistently if the terrain allows sliding attacks to work? Is there a gradient required? Why don't I just get this same bonus for attacking when charging on a mount, which makes me move much faster?
A one off incident, in which an extra 1d8 of damage is hardly game breaking, definitely does not need official rules.
This game was never meant to be played with rigid adherence to the rules. It's literally in the first few pages of the 5e DM's Guide.
DM's Guide, Page 4: As a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them... The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge.
So, RAW, the rules are intended to be modified whenever the DM sees fit.
Technically that means all of us play 100% RAW games. Who would of thought?
At level 2, my PCs were fighting a silver statue that rose out of a hole in a frozen lake. The rogue asked if he could skid across the ice to attack it. I told him that yes, he can try - make an acrobatics check. On succeeding, he skidded across the ice and dealt an additional 1d8 points of force damage for the success. Disallowing this option would have been less fun for everyone and the players loved it.
If there were a section in the DMG that describes how to adjudicate additional sliding damage, it would probably be good to use it, since it would be well balanced and consistent with players' expectations if they've done it in RAW games run by other DMs.
Since there are probably many scenarios in the rules that I have forgotten about, it's possible I have improvised rulings on certain player actions in the past that actually have official guidance. In that case, learning the RAW would help improve my game. Although I think my game will be just fine if I use the occasional improvised ruling.
A game like D&D really wouldn't benefit from a rules section on sliding damage. For one, it's actually quite illogical (you would slow down, it wouldn't actually make you hit harder haha) but also, this is the only time any of my players have tried to do an ice sliding attack in the 24 years I've been DM'ing for. Also, how do the rules determine consistently if the terrain allows sliding attacks to work? Is there a gradient required? Why don't I just get this same bonus for attacking when charging on a mount, which makes me move much faster?
A one off incident, in which an extra 1d8 of damage is hardly game breaking, definitely does not need official rules.
This game was never meant to be played with rigid adherence to the rules. It's literally in the first few pages of the 5e DM's Guide.
DM's Guide, Page 4: As a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them... The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge.
So, RAW, the rules are intended to be modified whenever the DM sees fit.
Technically that means all of us play 100% RAW games. Who would of thought?
At level 2, my PCs were fighting a silver statue that rose out of a hole in a frozen lake. The rogue asked if he could skid across the ice to attack it. I told him that yes, he can try - make an acrobatics check. On succeeding, he skidded across the ice and dealt an additional 1d8 points of force damage for the success. Disallowing this option would have been less fun for everyone and the players loved it.
If there were a section in the DMG that describes how to adjudicate additional sliding damage, it would probably be good to use it, since it would be well balanced and consistent with players' expectations if they've done it in RAW games run by other DMs.
Since there are probably many scenarios in the rules that I have forgotten about, it's possible I have improvised rulings on certain player actions in the past that actually have official guidance. In that case, learning the RAW would help improve my game. Although I think my game will be just fine if I use the occasional improvised ruling.
A game like D&D really wouldn't benefit from a rules section on sliding damage. For one, it's actually quite illogical (you would slow down, it wouldn't actually make you hit harder haha) but also, this is the only time any of my players have tried to do an ice sliding attack in the 24 years I've been DM'ing for. Also, how do the rules determine consistently if the terrain allows sliding attacks to work? Is there a gradient required? Why don't I just get this same bonus for attacking when charging on a mount, which makes me move much faster?
A one off incident, in which an extra 1d8 of damage is hardly game breaking, definitely does not need official rules.
Maybe not sliding damage in particular, but there is a general question of how to increase damage from a charging attack. For example, it feels like it should do more damage if I charge on my horse with a lance vs. if my horse is standing still and I stab with my lance.
I have used some basic physics to house rule this as similar to falling damage where you can calculate the equivalent fall distance from the move speed based on constant acceleration equations. But it basically works out to more or less 10 feet of fall distance or 1d6 extra damage for any reasonable speed.
At level 2, my PCs were fighting a silver statue that rose out of a hole in a frozen lake. The rogue asked if he could skid across the ice to attack it. I told him that yes, he can try - make an acrobatics check. On succeeding, he skidded across the ice and dealt an additional 1d8 points of force damage for the success. Disallowing this option would have been less fun for everyone and the players loved it.
If there were a section in the DMG that describes how to adjudicate additional sliding damage, it would probably be good to use it, since it would be well balanced and consistent with players' expectations if they've done it in RAW games run by other DMs.
Since there are probably many scenarios in the rules that I have forgotten about, it's possible I have improvised rulings on certain player actions in the past that actually have official guidance. In that case, learning the RAW would help improve my game. Although I think my game will be just fine if I use the occasional improvised ruling.
A game like D&D really wouldn't benefit from a rules section on sliding damage. For one, it's actually quite illogical (you would slow down, it wouldn't actually make you hit harder haha) but also, this is the only time any of my players have tried to do an ice sliding attack in the 24 years I've been DM'ing for. Also, how do the rules determine consistently if the terrain allows sliding attacks to work? Is there a gradient required? Why don't I just get this same bonus for attacking when charging on a mount, which makes me move much faster?
A one off incident, in which an extra 1d8 of damage is hardly game breaking, definitely does not need official rules.
This game was never meant to be played with rigid adherence to the rules. It's literally in the first few pages of the 5e DM's Guide.
DM's Guide, Page 4: As a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them... The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge.
So, RAW, the rules are intended to be modified whenever the DM sees fit.
Technically that means all of us play 100% RAW games. Who would of thought?
No, since if you are unaware of a RAW, you are not interpreting it, and you are not deciding whether to abide by it.
If you are a megamind who knows every iota of the rules, and then you choose not to abide by them, then you're playing by RAW I guess.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Or speed of sound Monks.
Yeah, like who tracks coin encumbrance? Yeah, if they find a cache of trunks full of silver, I'm not going to let them carry all of it out of the dungeon, but I'm not going to make them re-tabulate their total carried weight every time they spend a silver in a tavern.
You're welcome to do that if your group enjoys that kind of experience. Hey, I'm not one to talk. The party in my game has their own accountant, lawyer, bank account and mortgage. But like food and water on wilderness travel or tracking ammo supply, it requires spending session time and energy to track, so it's not worth it unless it's a limiting factor.
I'm curious how the 100% RAW inspection/accreditation process works :)
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Have you ever looked at the Rules & Game Mechanics forum? Even for people who know the rules as well as anyone it’s impossible to follow all RAW perfectly because it’s impossible to agree on them.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Especially when the rules disagree with themselves in multiple places.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Even real lawyers who pass the bar exam don't know every statute on the books. Much less rules lawyers.
Depends on what your definition is. Sometimes the RAW contradicts itself, and sometimes it's missing. If you're allowed to cherry-pick which RAW to follow while still qualifying, and if you're allowed to fill in the gaps as you see fit, and if you're allowed to interpret vague or ambiguous rules freely, then yes, it's possible to play 100% RAW.
But an easy example of this going pear-shaped in a hurry is the mounted combat rules. That needs all three above, and in spades.
Mounted combat is so complex. What reach do you have to and from a medium creature mounted on a large creature? If the player doesn't directly control the mount, the mount has movement and action, but who controls its movement? It should probably be the DM, but I don't think it's explicitly stated? Should you factor the mount's intelligence when deciding it it moves helpfully or randomly or fearfully?
While some think rules lawyering arguments are similar to actual legal arguments, actual law isn't really a good analog to game systems. Unless there really is a sanctioning body / DM Bar association to hold the 100% RAW games to the 100% RAW standard. Like do the pop in and audit a few rounds of combat, review Wish usage, etc? Also what happens when the law changes or liberalizes (a la XGtE and TCoE)? Are player agency advocates like the 100% RAW movements' ACLU or National Lawyers Guild?
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Yeah, the bar is not just an exam. Your conduct is under scrutiny and you can be disbarred if you fudge rolls.
Your not carrying enough with 6 weapons a shield and a backpack.. nevermind surface area its not like the shield can't go OVER their greatsword bow n quiver
Folks, bringing a two handed sword or a battle ax, or a weapon and shield combo into a dungeon, basically conditions which constitute what in modern terms is called close quarters battle, wouldn't be a good idea either on the sort of realism grounds I think we're digressing into (conversation is about RAW not does encumbrance work?). To circle back to RAW encumbrance is listed as a _variant_ in the rules. Probably why it's toggled in the RAW fidelity DDB toolset.
As for the digression, I think we can grant that folks including the game designers or at least the foundational mechanics they've inherited don't have a well grounded understanding (or inherited a legacy of not the most grounded understanding) of human performance, carrying capacity vs combat or tactical load capacity (and how to carry gear that allows you to drop the encumbering bulk when you need to move with your tactical load out). Other games, usually going for a gritty modern realistic mode, do a better job of it, but per this thread we're left with RAW if we want the 100% RAW lapel pin and whatever perks belonging to the 100% RAW bar association entails. Someone needs to build a 100% RAW BAR cult in Adohand's Kitchen.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't think anything more complex than what we have was ever really considered. That goes specifically for encumbrance, but for a lot of other mechanics as well. Those are the RAW because that's how they were designed, not because of any desire for realism or out of a deep understanding of human physiology.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So. The rules are there to provide a framework around which you base the game, but also to give the players reasonable expectations about what will happen when they make choices in the game.
When the DM designs a new trap - let's say it's a Dex saving throw to avoid it, or take 4d12 radiant damage - how is this RAW? It's something the DM invented. When the DM roleplays any NPC in the game, they're making it up without any RAW coming into play. The rules are frameworks, and playing rigidly to RAW will always make your game inferior.
The game is better when you meet the players' expectations, and then allow rule of cool to override them whenever it's good to do so. Here's an example:
At level 2, my PCs were fighting a silver statue that rose out of a hole in a frozen lake. The rogue asked if he could skid across the ice to attack it. I told him that yes, he can try - make an acrobatics check. On succeeding, he skidded across the ice and dealt an additional 1d8 points of force damage for the success. Disallowing this option would have been less fun for everyone and the players loved it.
Where breaking away from the RAW rules is problematic however is when a player has an expectation - for instance, their class ability or spell text states something specific - and the DM decides to change it in a way that is non-favourable for the player. At that point, the DM has abandoned the framework, and the player feels that their decisions are no longer controllable because the outcome of what will happen becomes unreliable.
If there were a section in the DMG that describes how to adjudicate additional sliding damage, it would probably be good to use it, since it would be well balanced and consistent with players' expectations if they've done it in RAW games run by other DMs.
Since there are probably many scenarios in the rules that I have forgotten about, it's possible I have improvised rulings on certain player actions in the past that actually have official guidance. In that case, learning the RAW would help improve my game. Although I think my game will be just fine if I use the occasional improvised ruling.
A game like D&D really wouldn't benefit from a rules section on sliding damage. For one, it's actually quite illogical (you would slow down, it wouldn't actually make you hit harder haha) but also, this is the only time any of my players have tried to do an ice sliding attack in the 24 years I've been DM'ing for. Also, how do the rules determine consistently if the terrain allows sliding attacks to work? Is there a gradient required? Why don't I just get this same bonus for attacking when charging on a mount, which makes me move much faster?
A one off incident, in which an extra 1d8 of damage is hardly game breaking, definitely does not need official rules.
This game was never meant to be played with rigid adherence to the rules. It's literally in the first few pages of the 5e DM's Guide.
DM's Guide, Page 4: As a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them... The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge.
So, RAW, the rules are intended to be modified whenever the DM sees fit.
Technically that means all of us play 100% RAW games. Who would of thought?
Winner
Maybe not sliding damage in particular, but there is a general question of how to increase damage from a charging attack. For example, it feels like it should do more damage if I charge on my horse with a lance vs. if my horse is standing still and I stab with my lance.
I have used some basic physics to house rule this as similar to falling damage where you can calculate the equivalent fall distance from the move speed based on constant acceleration equations. But it basically works out to more or less 10 feet of fall distance or 1d6 extra damage for any reasonable speed.
No, since if you are unaware of a RAW, you are not interpreting it, and you are not deciding whether to abide by it.
If you are a megamind who knows every iota of the rules, and then you choose not to abide by them, then you're playing by RAW I guess.