Rules as written, and rules as intended
I prefer Rules as Written and Rules as Interpreted, since only the author can know the author's intent.
-Kle.
Either way it still breaks down as Letter vs Spirit (as ProffPotts pointed out.)
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I prefer Rules as Written and Rules as Interpreted, since only the author can know the author's intent.
-Kle.
Except in most cases the author lets you know what they intended. Sometimes (like Boon Companion) the author wrote it one way and intended it to work one way (Single class ranger takes it to boost AC to character level) and Paizo intentionally changed it (so single class Rangers gain no benefit of the feat) so in this case the Intent (since Paizo matters and not the author) is known.
Also, I see RAW as more of a Rules as W-interpreted thing. If I want to be awesome powered, I'll suggest, assert, and defend the most awesome interpretation regardless of whether or not the actual correct meaning of the line is well known and understood.
Two prime examples (from 3.5 days on wizards.com borads) for me of this problem with RAW are these:
- It says spells per day but that actually means spells per rest and if I can rest 3 times in a day, I get 3 full sets of spells I can cast each day, since day in the context of "spells per day" doesn't mean day.
- Perfect two weapon says I take as many attacks with my secondary as with my primary. A 20th level fighter who gets 4 attack with primary and 3 with GTWF, and taking PTWF instead of getting just a single 4th attack which is clearly the meaning of the rule (to add a single additional attack) they use the phrase "as many as primary" and lump in all additional attacks (like haste) as "a primary" and duplicate a cloned copy of that attack with the secondary weapon.
So, for many RAW is a dirty word.
That being said, RAW is the best that can be used on the forum. Paizo forums have much less of a problem with (in my opinion) silly interpretations like those two above. There just isn't that many people pushing these type of RAW meanings as there were on wizards.com.
Except in most cases the author lets you know what they intended. Sometimes (like Boon Companion) the author wrote it one way and intended it to work one way (Single class ranger takes it to boost AC to character level) and Paizo intentionally changed it (so single class Rangers gain no benefit of the feat) so in this case the Intent (since Paizo matters and not the author) is known.
Where did they do this? I have only found a discussion on the need for an errata but it is still ambiguous. Here it says raises the companion to the character's character level, which would allow a single class ranger to benefit.
Except in most cases the author lets you know what they intended. Sometimes (like Boon Companion) the author wrote it one way and intended it to work one way (Single class ranger takes it to boost AC to character level) and Paizo intentionally changed it (so single class Rangers gain no benefit of the feat) so in this case the Intent (since Paizo matters and not the author) is known.Where did they do this? I have only found a discussion on the need for an errata but it is still ambiguous. Here it says raises the companion to the character's character level, which would allow a single class ranger to benefit.
*raises hand*
I, too, would like to know where this adjusted. It could greatly affect some of my games.
Greg
I prefer Rules as Written and Rules as Interpreted, since only the author can know the author's intent.
-Kle.
Except if the author tells you what his intent was. Or you violate his mind and rip the thoughts from his consciousness.
I wouldn't recommend the latter, though. A lot of these authors are really disturbed individuals. You might miss his intention on the rule and instead mindwitness his group's playtest of a game system that is F.A.T.A.L. combined with HoL and heavy TimeCube influences.
Something like that could drive you crazy.
It happened to me once. I'm so happy I didn't go crazy from it. So happy I could laugh.
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!
I haven't heard anything about errata regarding the Boon Companion feat. The only thing I can figure is that a Ranger with the Beast Master archetype could exploit it. At 12th level, with multiple investments into the feat, one could have three companions at 8th level each, or two at 10th.
I prefer Rules as Written and Rules as Interpreted, since only the author can know the author's intent.
-Kle.Except if the author tells you what his intent was. Or you violate his mind and rip the thoughts from his consciousness.
I wouldn't recommend the latter, though. A lot of these authors are really disturbed individuals. You might miss his intention on the rule and instead mindwitness his group's playtest of a game system that is F.A.T.A.L. combined with HoL and heavy TimeCube influences.
Something like that could drive you crazy.
It happened to me once. I'm so happy I didn't go crazy from it. So happy I could laugh.
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!
You forgot to add a dash of Synibar in there...