I don't know. Once you get your head in the rules, I've found it is actually pretty easy to figure out the intent. There are a few guidelines you need to follow, and having done actual design helps a lot since it gets you in the mindset. There've only been a few cases I can remember where I wasn't able to figure out with pretty good certainty the intent.
I do despise the bastardization of RAI to mean "Rules as IWantThem" though. I'll gladly say what the intent is, even if I disagree with it.
I do think there are a lot of RAW vs RAI issues where the developer intent is fairly clear (Like the aforementioned "dead people can still take actions" issue). My main point of wariness is, that outside of dev statements, everyone's RAI tends to be heavily influenced by their own opinions. Even if that opinion is informed by lots of GMing and/or design experience and makes the game feel a lot smoother and more enjoyable, there's still going to be a personal and subjective element to it.
You don't have to read the rules like a robot guys. It is obviously intended to apply to familiars as well. If I ever sat down at a table and the GM told me that this feat didn't work on my familiar, I would get up immediately and leave that table. PFS doesn't take away your ability to use common sense™. I've been at several tables where the GM and players work together on playing things out differently than how a scenario is written. I tend to quote this a lot and I feel it is very appropriate here:
Paizo firmly believes it is the privilege and responsibility of the GM to make rulings for unusual circumstances or unusual characters.
Also,
I really need an answer on this question and there’s no FAQ for it yet. What should I do?
Have the GM make a ruling and move on. Even if you’re playing in a Pathfinder Society campaign: sometimes the GM has to make a ruling so the game can proceed.
|
Another interesting RAW v. RAI thing is that if you are a Brother of the Seal or a Champion of Irori, and you take Monastic Legacy, each level of the PrC counts as 1.5 monk levels towards unarmed strikes.Oh wow. That actually sounds cool.Add half the levels you have in classes other than monk to your monk level to determine your effective monk level for your base unarmed strike damage. This feat does not make levels in classes other than monk count toward any other monk class features.Technically the PrC levels aren't monk levels. Its not a ruling I support, utilize, or agree with, but it is an interpretation of RAW.
There is a thread about it here. Part of me actually hopes it comes out as "yes" because it would be a [minor] monk buff, and would be cool. The other part of me thinks it won't be, because it would be a monk buff.
|
|
Another RAW v. RAI is Shield Master
You do not suffer any penalties on attack rolls made with a shield while you are wielding another weapon.
This can be interpreted as "I can TWF Power Attack Combat Expertise Fight Defensively with 19 neg. levels and be just fine!" Nobody ever agrees with it though, because its kinda dumb. Still, its RAW v. RAI.
The only people who follow super RAW against common sense and clear intended function are those who wish to exploit a loophole or for some reason specifically disallow certain combinations (though the reason for wanting to disallow things could be numerous).
Those aren't the only people who follow RAW.
The only people who follow super RAW against common sense and clear intended function are those who wish to exploit a loophole or for some reason specifically disallow certain combinations (though the reason for wanting to disallow things could be numerous).Those aren't the only people who follow RAW.
"The only people who follow super RAW against common sense and clear intended function".
Claxon is making a different point than what you're responding to.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed.
The insinuations that those who do not agree in totality, are either mentally, and/or morally deficient, is needless, and uncalled for.
Preening atop one's high horse, and scoffing at those who would disagree, is terrible behavior.
Worse, is when it is done whilst behind the claim of championing some Developer, like a white knight, as if your fellation of this person(or persons), would give you an excuse to behave so badly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem with RAW v RAI arguments is that apart from the obvious disconnects between RAW and RAI (such as "you cannot take actions while dead" or "Shield Master totally ignores Power Attack penalties") RAI can and will vary depending on the reader.
One example can be seen in the recent Crane Wing threads. Those threads showed that different people interpreted the Fighting Defensively rules differently, which in turn had a significant impact on the power level of Crane Wing. Many of the people who complained that Crane Wing was overpowered were simultaneously ignoring the limitations of the feat because they did not understand the intended function of Fighting Defensively - evidenced by the "Crane Wing made you immune to T-rexes" argument.
Another problem is when RAW and RAI don't really line up and then a FAQ is posted that backs up the RAW ruling over the RAI ruling... Titan Mauler would be an example of that. The original archetype was stated by the author as intended to use oversized weapons, but the subsequent FAQ reply on the topic backed up the RAW ruling.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it incredibly insulting that when I read a rule and interpret it, when it goes against your interpretation it is "Me trying to find a loophole" and not "Common sense, how the designers intended it".
Maybe instead some of the people in this thread should probably drop the "holier than thou" attitude when discussing rules! I feel like it would allow the community to come to a consensus much easier
Indeed.
The insinuations that those who do not agree in totality, are either mentally, and/or morally deficient, is needless, and uncalled for.
Preening atop one's high horse, and scoffing at those who would disagree, is terrible behavior.
Worse, is when it is done whilst behind the claim of championing some Developer, like a white knight, as if your fellation of this person(or persons), would give you an excuse to behave so badly.
I wish I could favorite these posts multiple times. I really do.
I'm so freaking tired of white-knight wannabes who defend each and every aspect of PF rules without putting any thought into it just because those happen to be the rules. It's even worse when they claim to be offended when you point out the flaws in the game
New Flash: Every game is flawed! Every. Single. Game. Ever.
I can think of a few posters like that... One of them once accused me of cheating in a build comparison because my archer Bard's Dex was too high (and by "too high", he meant "above 14". I'm serious). He refused to acknowledge his bias even after multiple posters (including some who vehemently disagreed with me) pointed out there was nothing wrong or unreasonable with my build.
Tic Tac Toe isn't flawed....
oh noes I CANT DRAW PERFECT SQUARES!!! AHHH!!!
Turn-based games always have a problem with initiative... Tic-Tac-Toe is no exception. ;)
Turn-based games always have a problem with initiative... Tic-Tac-Toe is no exception. ;)Tic Tac Toe isn't flawed....
oh noes I CANT DRAW PERFECT SQUARES!!! AHHH!!!
Tic-Tac-Toe is an awful game.
Player 2 can only tie or lose.
Also, as written, a Tyrannosaurus can swallow a Stegosaurus whole. Gonna assume that one qualifies...
That'd be one hoarse tyrannosaurus. Ouch.
Player 2 can win, if player 1 is merciful and/or dumb.
Its a bit like how the Rogue or Fighter works then hm.