Why argue RAW if it doesn't matter? Personally I think that RAW is the only part of the rules really worth debating. The RAW is the law, everything else is homebrew. There's nothing wrong with homebrew. In fact very few DM's would bother playing a completely RAW game. There are going to be DM interpretations and rulings. That's what makes the game dynamic and... well... work. But arguing RAI is really just arguing over what flavor you like best, or what genre of music you think sucks. It's just like... your opinion, man. I'm not going to argue against anyone's opinion or the logic behind it. The fact is if you're the DM your justification is, "'cause I said so". And that is entirely RAW. The DM runs the game. But I do think it's worth knowing when you're using RAW and when you're using RAI or homebrew, (which to me is essentially the same thing... In other words if you intended a rule to mean one thing... you should have written that thing. It is informative to see RAI as advice, but it's not the rules. The rules are the rules.) Not that it isn't worth talking about RAI or even homebrew interpretations as useful advice to follow or discard as seen fit. You just can't really debate it. You can't tell a DM his homebrew rules are wrong in his game. They might be stupid, or lame, or amazing, but they aren't right or wrong. They are just that DM's rules. Anyway... Sorry for being so verbose.
RAI is not at all the same as homebrew. - RAW are the rules exactly as they are written, which is what we as players/DMs interpret. - RAI is one interpretation, namely that of the designers, and is as such the way the game is intended to be run from the designers' perspective. RAI is often the interpretation of RAW that makes the most sense (as it should be), but sometimes other interpretations seem equally valid. - Homebrew is when the game is run in a way that deviates from RAW, i.e. in a way that doesn't make sense according to RAW or isn't covered in RAW.
I disagree with your interpretation of the definition of home brew. Much of the game demands rulings and interpretation. That’s not home brew either. That’s how the game is designed.
If you interpret and make rulings based on RAW, it is indeed not homebrew.
The only real difference between RAI and homebrew is that RAI comes from the developers and is reasonably well thought out and funded rather than just being created by any random schmo... but it is functionally still just another interpretation and nothing more than a suggestion. In other words, it is the same. It's the difference between DLC and a mod. Both are optional pieces that you can choose to use or not and the only functional difference is the source. The practical difference of course is in the fact that RAI is actually coming from game designers who are professionals, though that is not always a guarantee that what they produce will be better than every homebrew interpretation any more than DLC is always better than a mod. There are some mods that are fantastic and way beyond the quality of the base game's actual DLC. Just look at how the community has helped improve Elder Scrolls games over the years. Nearly all of the improved features Bethesda added to each subsequent game were first introduced as mods to their previous games... *shrug*
In short there's a practical difference between RAI and homebrew, not a fundamental one. Functionally they are the same.
The only real difference between RAI and homebrew is that RAI comes from the developers and is reasonably well thought out and funded rather than just being created by any random schmo... but it is functionally still just another interpretation and nothing more than a suggestion. In other words, it is the same. It's the difference between DLC and a mod. Both are optional pieces that you can choose to use or not and the only functional difference is the source. The practical difference of course is in the fact that RAI is actually coming from game designers who are professionals, though that is not always a guarantee that what they produce will be better than every homebrew interpretation any more than DLC is always better than a mod. There are some mods that are fantastic and way beyond the quality of the base game's actual DLC. Just look at how the community has helped improve Elder Scrolls games over the years. Nearly all of the improved features Bethesda added to each subsequent game were first introduced as mods to their previous games... *shrug*
In short there's a practical difference between RAI and homebrew, not a fundamental one. Functionally they are the same.
They are not the same. RAI is the intention behind RAW.
A DMs interpretation of RAW is simply that; an interpretation of RAW.
Homebrew is not an interpretation of RAW. It is the act of making something yourself and not restricting yourself to RAW.
Right. And, a lot of the game is not covered by RAW.
If you make up rules for the game that don't exist in RAW, then you are homebrewing. You can choose to follow RAW if you want to. You only divert from RAW when you choose to, you aren't forced to do so. Saying the game is not defined in the rules is an odd take in my opinion.
That is still functionally the same. RAI is not RAW. Whether the developer intended something or not if it's not RAW it still isn't RAW regardless of what they intended. It's useful to know, and can be used at the DM's discretion. But so is homebrew. Thus it is functionally exactly the same, we're merely putting RAI on a pedestal because it comes from the developers. But it is still just an interpretation that is 100% optional.
If RAI were really meant to be the rules or anything more than an interpretation it wouldn't be RAI, it would be an errata and become RAW.
The only real difference between RAI and homebrew is that RAI comes from the developers and is reasonably well thought out and funded rather than just being created by any random schmo... but it is functionally still just another interpretation and nothing more than a suggestion.
RAI is "this is what we were trying to accomplish with this rule". A lot of dev rulings are not RAI, they're adjudicating edge cases no-one even thought about when writing the rule.
That is still functionally the same. RAI is not RAW. Whether the developer intended something or not if it's not RAW it still isn't RAW regardless of what they intended. It's useful to know, and can be used at the DM's discretion. But so is homebrew. Thus it is functionally exactly the same, we're merely putting RAI on a pedestal because it comes from the developers. But it is still just an interpretation that is 100% optional.
If RAI were really meant to be the rules or anything more than an interpretation it wouldn't be RAI, it would be an errata and become RAW.
Language is fluid and always needs to be interpreted in order to be understood. Saying that RAI isn't 'the rules' because RAW is sometimes written simply enough to allow multiple viable interpretations is the same as saying that a painter who intentionally painted a sky with clouds, didn't actually paint said sky, but a frothing sea instead. It is simply not true, although everyone is welcome to interpret. The painting (RAW) is a reflection of the painter's intent (RAI), which is a sky with clouds. If you look at the painting (RAW) and see a frothing sea (interpretation of RAW), then I'm sure you can point out some elements of the painting to support your interpretation (finding support in RAW, aka a RAW interpretation). If you simply don't like the painting or find it inadequate at expressing something, then you can modify the painting or create a new one (Homebrew). Misinterpretation could likely have been mitigated by adding a lot of details akin to those found in the constitution, but no one wants to read through all that.
My point: RAI came before RAW. If you interpret RAW and end up with an interpretation different than RAI, it is not what was intended and thus may cause fundamental issues in the game down the road. If you discard or go beyond RAW and start homebrewing then you are effectively creating your own game structure (rules). RAI and homebrewing are only the same insomuch that neither are interpretations of RAW. One is the foundation for RAW (RAI), the other is a foundation for a new game (Homebrewing).
My point: RAI came before RAW. If you interpret RAW and end up with an interpretation different than RAI, it is not what was intended and thus may cause fundamental issues in the game down the road.
The problem comes when RAW conflicts with RAI -- they had something in mind when they designed the rule, but failed to actually accomplish that thing.
My point: RAI came before RAW. If you interpret RAW and end up with an interpretation different than RAI, it is not what was intended and thus may cause fundamental issues in the game down the road.
The problem comes when RAW conflicts with RAI -- they had something in mind when they designed the rule, but failed to actually accomplish that thing.
My point: RAI came before RAW. If you interpret RAW and end up with an interpretation different than RAI, it is not what was intended and thus may cause fundamental issues in the game down the road.
The problem comes when RAW conflicts with RAI -- they had something in mind when they designed the rule, but failed to actually accomplish that thing.
Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it (see chapter 9).
You have a 5ft reach. That is your reach. If you do a melee attack with a melee weapon or unarmed strike, that's your reach. For opportunity attacks, that is your reach with those weapons.
But, if you are wielding a weapon that has the Reach property then you have +5ft to your reach for opportunity attacks with it.
This is straightforward.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Reach. This weapon adds 5 feet to your reach when you attack with it, as well as when determining your reach for opportunity attacks with it (see chapter 9).
You have a 5ft reach. That is your reach. If you do a melee attack with a melee weapon or unarmed strike, that's your reach. For opportunity attacks, that is your reach with those weapons.
But, if you are wielding a weapon that has the Reach property then you have +5ft to your reach for opportunity attacks with it.
This is straightforward.
It says "with it". So yes, if you only have a glaive then your AoO with it is now at 10'. Straightforward indeed. But your kick or head butt still has a 5' reach and you still have acces to those while using a glaive, and if you are using a whip and shortsword, you are using two weapons at the same time, one with a reach of 5' and the other with a reach of 10'.
I was never suggesting that RAI, Homebrew, Twitter Rulings, ect are in any way irrelevant or should be ignored. All of them can be informative and help DM's find different ways to interpret RAW. My point is merely that they are not RAW, and if you use any of the above in a way that conflicts with RAW you are essentially using a house rule.
House rules are entirely fine. The DM has to make rulings on the fly and will almost inevitably have to make at least some modifications here and there for nearly any campaign. The rules simply do not cover every possible situation, nor should they. As I tried to say earlier, the RAW are not the final word, they are merely a beginning... a foundation for the adventure.
But the RAW are the only, (mostly) consistent ruleset we have to share as a community and debate. Whatever exists outside the RAW be it RAI, homebrew, ect... if you choose to modify your game based on that then that's you prerogative as a DM and there's no point debating anything you're doing in that regard. Play your games however you want to play them. You can offer up what you use as suggestions as well and cite whatever you based it on as inspiration as well. Go nuts.
Now certainly there are places where RAW is not entirely clear. In those cases RAI can certainly be useful for a DM to decide how they will interpret the rules for their games. But even in these cases RAI is not RAW. If an artist paints a shitty sky and someone who has no idea the artist intended it to be sky comes along and sees it as an ocean is their interpretation wrong? I'd say they are no more wrong than anyone that see's a sky. It's neither. It's just paint on a canvas. If an artist can't or won't clearly communicate their intent it's nobody's fault for interpreting things another way. In fact artists often deliberately obfuscate so that each individual will be free to interpret the work in different ways. *shrug*
I'm not poopooing RAI. I'm merely saying they don't really affect the RAW. They can inform and suggest an interpretation in cases where the RAW are unclear. But I wouldn't blame anyone for being uninformed of the RAI or simply disagreeing with them and interpreting RAW another way that seems more logical or fun to them.
I was never suggesting that RAI, Homebrew, Twitter Rulings, ect are in any way irrelevant or should be ignored. All of them can be informative and help DM's find different ways to interpret RAW. My point is merely that they are not RAW, and if you use any of the above in a way that conflicts with RAW you are essentially using a house rule.
House rules are entirely fine. The DM has to make rulings on the fly and will almost inevitably have to make at least some modifications here and there for nearly any campaign. The rules simply do not cover every possible situation, nor should they. As I tried to say earlier, the RAW are not the final word, they are merely a beginning... a foundation for the adventure.
But the RAW are the only, (mostly) consistent ruleset we have to share as a community and debate. Whatever exists outside the RAW be it RAI, homebrew, ect... if you choose to modify your game based on that then that's you prerogative as a DM and there's no point debating anything you're doing in that regard. Play your games however you want to play them. You can offer up what you use as suggestions as well and cite whatever you based it on as inspiration as well. Go nuts.
Now certainly there are places where RAW is not entirely clear. In those cases RAI can certainly be useful for a DM to decide how they will interpret the rules for their games. But even in these cases RAI is not RAW. If an artist paints a shitty sky and someone who has no idea the artist intended it to be sky comes along and sees it as an ocean is their interpretation wrong? I'd say they are no more wrong than anyone that see's a sky. It's neither. It's just paint on a canvas. If an artist can't or won't clearly communicate their intent it's nobody's fault for interpreting things another way. In fact artists often deliberately obfuscate so that each individual will be free to interpret the work in different ways. *shrug*
I'm not poopooing RAI. I'm merely saying they don't really affect the RAW. They can inform and suggest an interpretation in cases where the RAW are unclear. But I wouldn't blame anyone for being uninformed of the RAI or simply disagreeing with them and interpreting RAW another way that seems more logical or fun to them.
The only point you're making that I am trying to address is when you say RAI is the same as Homebrew. It is not. Can you name a few examples of RAI directly contradicting RAW? If not, I don't see how you can argue that RAI and Homebrew is the same, as the definition of Homebrew is that it contradicts RAW or adds new rules to the game.
Whether or not other people's opinions about- and interpretations of another person's choice is as valid as the intent and opinion of the one making the choice, is more of a philosophical debate that largely depends on context. Suffice to say that, in the case at hand, I do believe it is possible to interpret rules wrong, just as it is possible to interpret an artist's intent wrong.
If what we're discussing is the rules then everything outside the rules is outside the rules... hence functionally the same. As a practical matter sure there are many differences. But functionally, from the perspective of discussing RAW everything not RAW is not RAW. That's it. That's the whole idea there. I'm not saying it's all exactly the same in every context. Merely in the context of talking about rules.
I would argue that the interpreter, (be it of rules or of art) is not wrong, but merely different. If someone has no possible means of coming to the same interpretation as the artist or designer simply because they only have access to the work it-self, then their interpretation may differ from the artists through absolutely no fault of their own. If anything the fault lies upon the artist for being vague. Therefore not wrong, merely different. Whenever it comes to any sort of communication be it art, language or whatever... there's going to be something lost in translation. I find it very ungenerous to characterize someone as wrong for the simple fact of not being clairvoyant. Not that there can't be wrong interpretations either. Clearly people misinterpret the rules all the time. Hence the utility of having discussions about RAW in the first place. But I would posit that any interpretation of RAW that doesn't actually contradict RAW it-self or add it's own rules is technically equally valid, regardless of sage advice or RAI, ect. Note: "technically" In actual practice there will be better interpretations than others whether for reasons of logic, consistency, fun, ect. And often the RAI can be informative in finding the way to those interpretations. But it's still not RAW. And if we're debating RAW... *shrug*
If what we're discussing is the rules then everything outside the rules is outside the rules... hence functionally the same. As a practical matter sure there are many differences. But functionally, from the perspective of discussing RAW everything not RAW is not RAW. That's it. That's the whole idea there. I'm not saying it's all exactly the same in every context. Merely in the context of talking about rules.
I would argue that the interpreter, (be it of rules or of art) is not wrong, but merely different. If someone has no possible means of coming to the same interpretation as the artist or designer simply because they only have access to the work it-self, then their interpretation may differ from the artists through absolutely no fault of their own. If anything the fault lies upon the artist for being vague. Therefore not wrong, merely different. Whenever it comes to any sort of communication be it art, language or whatever... there's going to be something lost in translation. I find it very ungenerous to characterize someone as wrong for the simple fact of not being clairvoyant. Not that there can't be wrong interpretations either. Clearly people misinterpret the rules all the time. Hence the utility of having discussions about RAW in the first place. But I would posit that any interpretation of RAW that doesn't actually contradict RAW it-self or add it's own rules is technically equally valid, regardless of sage advice or RAI, ect. Note: "technically" In actual practice there will be better interpretations than others whether for reasons of logic, consistency, fun, ect. And often the RAI can be informative in finding the way to those interpretations. But it's still not RAW. And if we're debating RAW... *shrug*
Seems like we're on the same page about RAI being vastly different from Homebrew, which is the only point I commented on :)
As for whether anyone's interpretation is ever wrong and simply different, that's a philosophical question that largely depends on context I believe.
Examiner: "Your answer is wrong" Examinee: "It's not wrong. It's different" Examiner: "Well yes it's different. And wrong" Examinee: "No it's different... and correct! Good day sir!" Examiner: "What the..."
Sorry for the confusion earlier. Yeah in the narrow context of strictly debating RAW, everything not RAW is the same. Out in the real world, clearly RAI and homebrew are not the same thing. I think at the core we agree, we were just talking at it from two different angles.
I think the difference when it comes to interpretation is that there is no objectively correct or incorrect answer as long as it's consistent with RAW. Therefor whether something is "wrong" or not is entirely subjective and I prefer not to prejudice one subjective interpretation over another with such a pejorative as "wrong".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If you interpret and make rulings based on RAW, it is indeed not homebrew.
Right. And, a lot of the game is not covered by RAW.
The only real difference between RAI and homebrew is that RAI comes from the developers and is reasonably well thought out and funded rather than just being created by any random schmo... but it is functionally still just another interpretation and nothing more than a suggestion. In other words, it is the same. It's the difference between DLC and a mod. Both are optional pieces that you can choose to use or not and the only functional difference is the source. The practical difference of course is in the fact that RAI is actually coming from game designers who are professionals, though that is not always a guarantee that what they produce will be better than every homebrew interpretation any more than DLC is always better than a mod. There are some mods that are fantastic and way beyond the quality of the base game's actual DLC. Just look at how the community has helped improve Elder Scrolls games over the years. Nearly all of the improved features Bethesda added to each subsequent game were first introduced as mods to their previous games... *shrug*
In short there's a practical difference between RAI and homebrew, not a fundamental one. Functionally they are the same.
They are not the same. RAI is the intention behind RAW.
A DMs interpretation of RAW is simply that; an interpretation of RAW.
Homebrew is not an interpretation of RAW. It is the act of making something yourself and not restricting yourself to RAW.
If you make up rules for the game that don't exist in RAW, then you are homebrewing. You can choose to follow RAW if you want to. You only divert from RAW when you choose to, you aren't forced to do so. Saying the game is not defined in the rules is an odd take in my opinion.
That is still functionally the same. RAI is not RAW. Whether the developer intended something or not if it's not RAW it still isn't RAW regardless of what they intended. It's useful to know, and can be used at the DM's discretion. But so is homebrew. Thus it is functionally exactly the same, we're merely putting RAI on a pedestal because it comes from the developers. But it is still just an interpretation that is 100% optional.
If RAI were really meant to be the rules or anything more than an interpretation it wouldn't be RAI, it would be an errata and become RAW.
RAI is "this is what we were trying to accomplish with this rule". A lot of dev rulings are not RAI, they're adjudicating edge cases no-one even thought about when writing the rule.
Language is fluid and always needs to be interpreted in order to be understood. Saying that RAI isn't 'the rules' because RAW is sometimes written simply enough to allow multiple viable interpretations is the same as saying that a painter who intentionally painted a sky with clouds, didn't actually paint said sky, but a frothing sea instead. It is simply not true, although everyone is welcome to interpret. The painting (RAW) is a reflection of the painter's intent (RAI), which is a sky with clouds. If you look at the painting (RAW) and see a frothing sea (interpretation of RAW), then I'm sure you can point out some elements of the painting to support your interpretation (finding support in RAW, aka a RAW interpretation). If you simply don't like the painting or find it inadequate at expressing something, then you can modify the painting or create a new one (Homebrew). Misinterpretation could likely have been mitigated by adding a lot of details akin to those found in the constitution, but no one wants to read through all that.
My point: RAI came before RAW. If you interpret RAW and end up with an interpretation different than RAI, it is not what was intended and thus may cause fundamental issues in the game down the road. If you discard or go beyond RAW and start homebrewing then you are effectively creating your own game structure (rules). RAI and homebrewing are only the same insomuch that neither are interpretations of RAW. One is the foundation for RAW (RAI), the other is a foundation for a new game (Homebrewing).
The problem comes when RAW conflicts with RAI -- they had something in mind when they designed the rule, but failed to actually accomplish that thing.
When that happens, they errata it (change RAW).
Eventually….
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
You have a 5ft reach. That is your reach. If you do a melee attack with a melee weapon or unarmed strike, that's your reach. For opportunity attacks, that is your reach with those weapons.
But, if you are wielding a weapon that has the Reach property then you have +5ft to your reach for opportunity attacks with it.
This is straightforward.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It says "with it". So yes, if you only have a glaive then your AoO with it is now at 10'. Straightforward indeed. But your kick or head butt still has a 5' reach and you still have acces to those while using a glaive, and if you are using a whip and shortsword, you are using two weapons at the same time, one with a reach of 5' and the other with a reach of 10'.
I was never suggesting that RAI, Homebrew, Twitter Rulings, ect are in any way irrelevant or should be ignored. All of them can be informative and help DM's find different ways to interpret RAW. My point is merely that they are not RAW, and if you use any of the above in a way that conflicts with RAW you are essentially using a house rule.
House rules are entirely fine. The DM has to make rulings on the fly and will almost inevitably have to make at least some modifications here and there for nearly any campaign. The rules simply do not cover every possible situation, nor should they. As I tried to say earlier, the RAW are not the final word, they are merely a beginning... a foundation for the adventure.
But the RAW are the only, (mostly) consistent ruleset we have to share as a community and debate. Whatever exists outside the RAW be it RAI, homebrew, ect... if you choose to modify your game based on that then that's you prerogative as a DM and there's no point debating anything you're doing in that regard. Play your games however you want to play them. You can offer up what you use as suggestions as well and cite whatever you based it on as inspiration as well. Go nuts.
Now certainly there are places where RAW is not entirely clear. In those cases RAI can certainly be useful for a DM to decide how they will interpret the rules for their games. But even in these cases RAI is not RAW. If an artist paints a shitty sky and someone who has no idea the artist intended it to be sky comes along and sees it as an ocean is their interpretation wrong? I'd say they are no more wrong than anyone that see's a sky. It's neither. It's just paint on a canvas. If an artist can't or won't clearly communicate their intent it's nobody's fault for interpreting things another way. In fact artists often deliberately obfuscate so that each individual will be free to interpret the work in different ways. *shrug*
I'm not poopooing RAI. I'm merely saying they don't really affect the RAW. They can inform and suggest an interpretation in cases where the RAW are unclear. But I wouldn't blame anyone for being uninformed of the RAI or simply disagreeing with them and interpreting RAW another way that seems more logical or fun to them.
The only point you're making that I am trying to address is when you say RAI is the same as Homebrew. It is not. Can you name a few examples of RAI directly contradicting RAW? If not, I don't see how you can argue that RAI and Homebrew is the same, as the definition of Homebrew is that it contradicts RAW or adds new rules to the game.
Whether or not other people's opinions about- and interpretations of another person's choice is as valid as the intent and opinion of the one making the choice, is more of a philosophical debate that largely depends on context. Suffice to say that, in the case at hand, I do believe it is possible to interpret rules wrong, just as it is possible to interpret an artist's intent wrong.
If what we're discussing is the rules then everything outside the rules is outside the rules... hence functionally the same. As a practical matter sure there are many differences. But functionally, from the perspective of discussing RAW everything not RAW is not RAW. That's it. That's the whole idea there. I'm not saying it's all exactly the same in every context. Merely in the context of talking about rules.
I would argue that the interpreter, (be it of rules or of art) is not wrong, but merely different. If someone has no possible means of coming to the same interpretation as the artist or designer simply because they only have access to the work it-self, then their interpretation may differ from the artists through absolutely no fault of their own. If anything the fault lies upon the artist for being vague. Therefore not wrong, merely different. Whenever it comes to any sort of communication be it art, language or whatever... there's going to be something lost in translation. I find it very ungenerous to characterize someone as wrong for the simple fact of not being clairvoyant. Not that there can't be wrong interpretations either. Clearly people misinterpret the rules all the time. Hence the utility of having discussions about RAW in the first place. But I would posit that any interpretation of RAW that doesn't actually contradict RAW it-self or add it's own rules is technically equally valid, regardless of sage advice or RAI, ect. Note: "technically" In actual practice there will be better interpretations than others whether for reasons of logic, consistency, fun, ect. And often the RAI can be informative in finding the way to those interpretations. But it's still not RAW. And if we're debating RAW... *shrug*
Seems like we're on the same page about RAI being vastly different from Homebrew, which is the only point I commented on :)
As for whether anyone's interpretation is ever wrong and simply different, that's a philosophical question that largely depends on context I believe.
Examiner: "Your answer is wrong"
Examinee: "It's not wrong. It's different"
Examiner: "Well yes it's different. And wrong"
Examinee: "No it's different... and correct! Good day sir!"
Examiner: "What the..."
:')
Sorry for the confusion earlier. Yeah in the narrow context of strictly debating RAW, everything not RAW is the same. Out in the real world, clearly RAI and homebrew are not the same thing. I think at the core we agree, we were just talking at it from two different angles.
I think the difference when it comes to interpretation is that there is no objectively correct or incorrect answer as long as it's consistent with RAW. Therefor whether something is "wrong" or not is entirely subjective and I prefer not to prejudice one subjective interpretation over another with such a pejorative as "wrong".