Does Sleep make you Prone? + Do you drop held items?


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

DM_Blake wrote:
Lincoln Hills wrote:

There actually is a seldom-noticed line in the rulebook which the GM can use to resolve these sorts of rules questions.

Core Rulebook, p. 440: "The Material Plane [...] operates under the same set of natural laws that our own real world does."

That's nice.

So, is it OK if, in my campaign, I follow that rule on page 440 and have the sleep spell make people walk into the the nearest kitchen and start cooking, while dreaming of spaghetti on the television? Because to me, that sounds like NOT prone and NOT disarmed...

Only if you run the game close enough to me that I can play in it.

:)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Lincoln Hills wrote:
Yes, I know it's pedantic. But apparently we GMs need a rule to give us the authority to say "No, one grain of rice every three days is not enough to avoid starvation!" (Because the rules-as-written don't specify a quantity on p. 445.)

You already have one... It goes under the heading of..."You're the freaking Game Master."

That, and table variance is an expecting thing, not an apocalypse.


I was thinking of making Sleep cause characters to drop held items, fall prone, and then wake up because it hurts when you fall over (unless they're already seated, prone, standing on a pile of pillows...)

Pretty sure it's not RAI, but it is (a) following the rules of how things normally work in the real world, and (b) quite balanced for what a level 1 spell should be able to do. You can make them prone and disarm them, but can't then coup de grace them. A good houserule for annoying Slumber Hex witches...


Lincoln Hills wrote:

There actually is a seldom-noticed line in the rulebook which the GM can use to resolve these sorts of rules questions.

Core Rulebook, p. 440: "The Material Plane [...] operates under the same set of natural laws that our own real world does."

(Not that the rulebook does particularly well emulating that elsewhere, but that's where "specific trumps general" comes in handy. And it's hard to imagine a more general statement than the one above.)

That's nice.

In boxing/kickboxing/MMA, I've seen people get knocked out on their feet. Then they fall to the canvass and the impact snaps them out of it, at least a little - their heads might be fuzzy for a while, or they might beat the 10-count (for sports that have a 10-count), or they might not, but that impact from the fall snaps them back to some wakefulness.

So, is it OK if, in my campaign, I follow that rule on page 440 and have the sleep spell cause people to fall prone, maybe drop held items, but instantly wake up when they hit the ground, negating the duration of the effect?

Grand Lodge

Nah. Just have one of your enemies be secretly imprisoning the soul of a 20th level archwizard who can only act when he is magically slept so that the wizards soul can take over his body.

If they object, just tell them you are just following the rules on page 440, because you saw this once in real life (well, you were watching an anime, but you were watching it in real life, so that counts, right? And the Anime in question was about a D&Desque world with dragons and dungeons and such.)

Okay, it might be excessive, but it will be hilarious to see the looks on their face.

(It will be even funnier if any of them have ever watched the anime in question.)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

FLite wrote:
basically, the arguement is that unlike (for example) the stunned condition, unconsious does not say you drop what you hold, nor does it say you fall to the ground.

The reason stunned says you drop is because I might be stunned at witnessing someone say something rude. But it doesn't make me drop things I'm holding. In Pathfinder being stunned is more severe than in real life.

But in real life, when you go to sleep you don't keep standing (no one does) and you may or may not be able to hold onto your things. Most tv/film use people holding something to make a noise if they drop it to keep them awake.

Basically, it wasn't included in unconscious for the same reason they don't have a line in dead condition telling you that you can't walk, talk and fight while dead.

----

Addressing the sleep walking. Every case of Sleepwalking I've witnessed, the person is asleep (prone) and some time into dream state they begin to stand and walk and do things. Not really relevant to "you are now unconscious".


James Risner wrote:
FLite wrote:
basically, the arguement is that unlike (for example) the stunned condition, unconsious does not say you drop what you hold, nor does it say you fall to the ground.

The reason stunned says you drop is because I might be stunned at witnessing someone say something rude. But it doesn't make me drop things I'm holding. In Pathfinder being stunned is more severe than in real life.

But in real life, when you go to sleep you don't keep standing (no one does) and you may or may not be able to hold onto your things. Most tv/film use people holding something to make a noise if they drop it to keep them awake.

Basically, it wasn't included in unconscious for the same reason they don't have a line in dead condition telling you that you can't walk, talk and fight while dead.

Nice logic, until you ignore EVERYONE who has SEEN and posted about somebody asleep on their feet. Other then ignoring that you almost have a point. Except that you then point out that the condition Stun has a more serious result in game then in life. So the results only go one way? They could not have a less serious result?


There's no RAW that I know of to say definitely one way or the other, but I'd guess magically induced sleep is different than natural sleep. You're generally not slumped up against a wall or tree when it hits you and because it's magical and not natural, any tendency to sleepwalk can be hand-waved away by the GM.

Someone in an earlier post captured the mental image nicely of people hit by magical sleep as slowly drifting to the floor. Hence why they don't fall and smack their heads and then wake back up.

Plus that image fits what a number of stories (and Bugs Bunny) seem to depict. And who can argue with Bugs Bunny? :p

Regarding the OP, my vote would be Yes and Yes.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Minos Judge wrote:
Nice logic, until you ignore EVERYONE who has SEEN and posted about somebody asleep on their feet.

Fair enough. How about "in every game I've played since 1984 every GM and player immediately assumed prone when someone fell asleep".

I supposed since you assume otherwise, had I been at your table I would have experience my first table variance on this subject.


James Risner wrote:
Minos Judge wrote:
Nice logic, until you ignore EVERYONE who has SEEN and posted about somebody asleep on their feet.

Fair enough. How about "in every game I've played since 1984 every GM and player immediately assumed prone when someone fell asleep".

I supposed since you assume otherwise, had I been at your table I would have experience my first table variance on this subject.

This may sound like I am antagonizing you, because tone is hard to do through typing.

You mean sense 1984 nobody read what the book said and just assumed that it did more then it says? I have played longer and will admit that until somebody new came into the game and asked why we did something I was in the same school of thought as you. However when we actually started re-reading the rules, we realized that there were many minor things that we had been assuming that were not supported by RAW.

What I am gleaning from this is that people go into the game with preconceived notions and no amount of showing the rules will change their view point. That is too bad I have had to adjust my view point when people have shown me that the RAW dose not support my view. I do not understand why people will argue RAW for some rules and then for something like this they argue RAI. (I also dispute that they intended for it to do what people have ruled it to do.)

I have also had people point out that Sleep is a very OPed spell and then STILL argue against the view point that if you followed RAW that it would be on par with other spells of its level.

I will wait for next month when this question comes up again and ask the same questions again and still get no clear answer to hopfully bring more people into the light of RAW. ;)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Minos Judge wrote:
we realized that there were many minor things that we had been assuming that were not supported by RAW.

There is no such thing as One True RAW. There are lots of interpretations of what the rules say. I'm fine with you saying the rules say sleeping people stand and hold their objects. I've just never seen that interpretation in my life, ever. Including on a forum post.

My RAW is you go prone and you drop your stuff.

It comes down to permissive or non-permissive. It comes down to do you think the RAW must include every corner case and if not covered, it doesn't happen. Or do you think they assume you will make reasonable extrapolations. The developers have said too many times to count that they do assume you will extrapolate and the rules would need to be significantly larger if they didn't assume so.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

my impression of this thread:

Maybe?


James Risner wrote:
It comes down to do you think the RAW must include every corner case and if not covered, it doesn't happen.

I wouldn't call two additional powerful effects, that would affect most characters effected by the spell to be a corner case. The point is that forcing prone and disarmed is such a very big thing to not be mentioned in RAW.

Consider if the spell only inflicts Helpless. It is still a very powerful effect opening you up to a Coup-de-Grace. Tacking Prone and disarm onto the spell sounds like adding insult to injury.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
It comes down to permissive or non-permissive. It comes down to do you think the RAW must include every corner case and if not covered, it doesn't happen. Or do you think they assume you will make reasonable extrapolations. The developers have said too many times to count that they do assume you will extrapolate and the rules would need to be significantly larger if they didn't assume so.

No, THIS debate doesn't come down to that at all.

Debating about whether dead people get actions, yeah, extrapolate away.

But THIS debate is about whether Sleep is appropriately powered with Prone and Disarm being included or excluded from the effect, and since RAW doesn't include Prone or Disarm as effects of sleep magics, there is room for debate about whether they belong there at all and where the mechanical balance point lies.

After the ten thousand million billion threads about slumber witches ruining entire APs, I wonder, would they have been as ruinous if those GMs didn't include Prone and Disarm?

I mention this because I GMed a slumber witch. My player felt he was overpowering encounters (in Rappan Athuk, no less!) and I suggested this change to be less intuitive sleep and more "RAW doesn't say so" sleep and the slumber witch still felt powerful, but not quite as powerful. Even the player liked it, but then, he's not the "My character must be GOD!!!!" player, he's more of a "My game must be balanced and fun for everyone" player.

So it's not about permissive vs. restrictive, nor is it about extrapolation.

It's about game balance.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

DM_Blake wrote:
RAW doesn't include Prone or Disarm as effects of sleep magics, there is room for debate

According to you, but you do not get the power to dictate RAW. You have yours, I have mine. It is caled table variance. We read the same rules and come to different RAW.


James Risner wrote:
Minos Judge wrote:
we realized that there were many minor things that we had been assuming that were not supported by RAW.
There is no such thing as One True RAW. There are lots of interpretations of what the rules say. I'm fine with you saying the rules say sleeping people stand and hold their objects. I've just never seen that interpretation in my life, ever. Including on a forum post.

I can accept this as a given.

James Risner wrote:
My RAW is you go prone and you drop your stuff.

This however I cannot accept. This is clearly a case of RAI ruling by you. RAW only takes what is written and uses it in your argument. Not what somebody wished it to say.

Also do you rule that they take damage when they fall? If not why not? If you are going to make a ruling then you have to be willing to deal with all of the consequences. Do you believe that it is the same as going unconscious? I Could accept this, but that is not the case as per RAW. It is clearly differentiated by the way it is listed in the conditions.

James Risner wrote:
It comes down to permissive or non-permissive. It comes down to do you think the RAW must include every corner case and if not covered, it doesn't happen. Or do you think they assume you will make reasonable extrapolations. The developers have said too many times to count that they do assume you will extrapolate and the rules would need to be significantly larger if they didn't assume so.

I do not believe that this case of permissive or non-permissive. This is a case of changing how some classes are being played. Others have stated that it tones down the slumber hex from the Witch and changes how low level games are being played. This means that there should be no table variation. If you were to show up at my table you would be expecting your characters to do certain things, if I have other interpretations you will be either surprised or disappointed. Your character will not work as you expect.

This is what I like to avoid. This is why I try to only argue RAW. I do not like to argue what anybody intended. I do not have the same mind set as the designers, if I did I would then be comfortable stating their views.
The views that have been attributed to them are not something that I would desire to have stated of me. I can accept being wrong, however they feel that rules open to exploitation is the best thing in certain cases. I have trouble supporting that stance.


James Risner wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
RAW doesn't include Prone or Disarm as effects of sleep magics, there is room for debate
According to you, but you do not get the power to dictate RAW. You have yours, I have mine. It is caled table variance. We read the same rules and come to different RAW.

No. RAW is Rules as Written. There is only one RAW. Nowhere in RAW does it say that a sleeping character is anything other than in the Helpless condition.

Table variance is when the RAW is not explicit enough, so the RAW can be interpreted in various ways. This is what FAQ are for. That's why this really could use a FAQ.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

Well, I clicked FAQ.

Full disclosure: I want to see what the PDT's response looks like.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Melkiador wrote:
No. RAW is Rules as Written. There is only one RAW.

Sigh.

Simply not true. No matter how much you want it to be.

You are inserting an interpretation that says "Despite being unconscious, they stand rigidly and grip items tightly."

I am inserting an interpretation that says "Use normal real world understand of what happens when you go unconscious."

Both are interpreting the RAW.

Minos Judge wrote:
This is why I try to only argue RAW. I do not like to argue what anybody intended. I do not have the same mind set as the designers

I couldn't give a care less about Intent. I interpret based on RAW on the forums. I don't have any clue what they intend to happen. That is why I clicked FAQ also. I'll be happy to change should I be wrong, but I've got a good track record on the FAQ answers to date only 2 have deviated from my rules interpretation. Well a few more did but they got changed.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Minos Judge wrote:
Also do you rule that they take damage when they fall?

You don't take damage if you fall less than 10 feet.


James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
No. RAW is Rules as Written. There is only one RAW.

Sigh.

Simply not true. No matter how much you want it to be.

You are inserting an interpretation that says "Despite being unconscious, they stand rigidly and grip items tightly."

I am inserting an interpretation that says "Use normal real world understand of what happens when you go unconscious."

Both are interpreting the RAW.

Sigh.

You are adding the condition of "unconscious". The spell uses the condition of "helpless". There can be no debate as to which conditions are stated. The debate is over the use of the term "magically induced slumber". This is NOT a condition. Slumber and sleep are not listed as conditions, however they are used repeatedly throughout the CRB to describe things, without ever being properly clarified in the texts.


The complaints I've seen about Sleep being overpowered tended to focus more on coup de grace then prone or disarm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
No. RAW is Rules as Written. There is only one RAW.

Sigh.

Simply not true. No matter how much you want it to be.

You are inserting an interpretation that says "Despite being unconscious, they stand rigidly and grip items tightly."

I am inserting an interpretation that says "Use normal real world understand of what happens when you go unconscious."

Both are interpreting the RAW.

You seem to be confusing RAW with "right". RAW is a rule that you can quote. Anything else is an interpretation. RAW is not itself an interpretation. Rather interpretations are drawn from RAW.

What you seem to be wanting to argue is that something doesn't have to be RAW to be "right", which could be a valid argument. But RAW is still RAW. If it isn't explicitly written, it can't be RAW.

Edit: And as argued before a character under the effect of the Sleep spell is definitely not "Unconscious" as the word is defined in the game.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Melkiador wrote:
RAW is a rule that you can quote.

Nope, RAW is your understand of the rules you have read.

This includes explicit rules and implicit rules.


WHAT IS DEAD CAN NEVER DIE!

RAW-RAW dead is a pretty easy to deal with condition, So I use RAI-RAW as it pretty clearly was written as RAW with that implicit understanding.


James Risner wrote:
Nope, RAW is your understand of the rules you have read.

Rules As Written. That phrase can't be interpreted in any other reasonable way.

A. Is it a rule?
B. Is it written?

If something doesn't satisfy A and B, it is not RAW. If a rule isn't "written", how is it RAW?


Melkiador wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Nope, RAW is your understand of the rules you have read.

Rules As Written. That phrase can't be interpreted in any other reasonable way.

A. Is it a rule?
B. Is it written?

If something doesn't satisfy A and B, it is not RAW. If a rule isn't "written", how is it RAW?

yes and they were written with certain intent. choosing to ignore that intent ignores the REASON it was written and thus it's pointless to argue past that point.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Melkiador wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Nope, RAW is your understand of the rules you have read.

Rules As Written. That phrase can't be interpreted in any other reasonable way.

A. Is it a rule?
B. Is it written?

Everything written must be interpreted to be understood.


Bandw2 wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Nope, RAW is your understand of the rules you have read.

Rules As Written. That phrase can't be interpreted in any other reasonable way.

A. Is it a rule?
B. Is it written?

If something doesn't satisfy A and B, it is not RAW. If a rule isn't "written", how is it RAW?

yes and they were written with certain intent.

... which is what is covered by Rules as Intended.

There is also a third option, which would be Rules as Understood, or perhaps Rules as (Mis)Understood. Those are all different, and all important, but they're not interchangeable.

Rules as Written is important because (barring idiots who can't keep the three different rulesets straight), we can all agree on what the rules as written say, because anything "as written" can be quoted directly. (The only problem comes in when there are different printings and therefore different versions of RAW.)

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Melkiador wrote:
If a rule isn't "written", how is it RAW?

Implicit rules are not written, yet understood.

Unwritten rules are not written, yet understood.

There is no magical RAW that has no interpretation. It isn't a rule until you have interpreted the meaning of the Rules as Written.


James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
If a rule isn't "written", how is it RAW?
Implicit rules are not written, yet understood.

And therefore they're not rules-as-written.

Quote:


Unwritten rules are not written, yet understood.

And therefore they're not rules-as-written.


Bandw2 wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Nope, RAW is your understand of the rules you have read.

Rules As Written. That phrase can't be interpreted in any other reasonable way.

A. Is it a rule?
B. Is it written?

If something doesn't satisfy A and B, it is not RAW. If a rule isn't "written", how is it RAW?

yes and they were written with certain intent. choosing to ignore that intent ignores the REASON it was written and thus it's pointless to argue past that point.

Yes and No. As I said before, RAW is not necessarily an interpretation or a ruling. Interpretations are drawn from RAW. Intent is separate from RAW, but used in combination with RAW to arrive at a ruling.

RAW is often only useful in supporting a ruling. In the case of Sleep causing Prone, there is no RAW to support this. What you are arguing is that just because something is not RAW does not mean that it can't be true. This still doesn't change the definition of the words Rules-As-Written.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Nope, RAW is your understand of the rules you have read.

Rules As Written. That phrase can't be interpreted in any other reasonable way.

A. Is it a rule?
B. Is it written?

If something doesn't satisfy A and B, it is not RAW. If a rule isn't "written", how is it RAW?

yes and they were written with certain intent.

... which is what is covered by Rules as Intended.

There is also a third option, which would be Rules as Understood, or perhaps Rules as (Mis)Understood. Those are all different, and all important, but they're not interchangeable.

Rules as Written is important because (barring idiots who can't keep the three different rulesets straight), we can all agree on what the rules as written say, because anything "as written" can be quoted directly. (The only problem comes in when there are different printings and therefore different versions of RAW.)

while true, RAI is more important than RAW, and i'm not talking about Fake RAI where the intent is unclear, we all know RAI dead makes you dead, and you can't do actions or anything anymore. or how character walk normally on the ground or need oxygen to breath. etc etc etc


Orfamay Quest wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
If a rule isn't "written", how is it RAW?
Implicit rules are not written, yet understood.

And therefore they're not rules-as-written.

Quote:


Unwritten rules are not written, yet understood.

And therefore they're not rules-as-written.

Maybe we need a new term. Rules as Unwritten. RAU.


Melkiador wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Nope, RAW is your understand of the rules you have read.

Rules As Written. That phrase can't be interpreted in any other reasonable way.

A. Is it a rule?
B. Is it written?

If something doesn't satisfy A and B, it is not RAW. If a rule isn't "written", how is it RAW?

yes and they were written with certain intent. choosing to ignore that intent ignores the REASON it was written and thus it's pointless to argue past that point.

Yes and No. As I said before, RAW is not necessarily an interpretation or a ruling. Interpretations are drawn from RAW. Intent is separate from RAW, but used in combination with RAW to arrive at a ruling.

RAW is only useful in supporting a ruling. In the case of sleep causing Prone, there is no RAW to support this. What you are arguing is that just because something is not RAW does not mean that it can't be true. This still doesn't change the definition of the words Rules As Written.

RAW is an incomplete listing of the rules, you can't base ANYTHING wholesale on RAW. without intent then there is no meaning behind the world, or "ruling" as you would say.

if your goal is to say "there's no RAW proof that you fall prone or drop your items" then congrats you can argue that point but it ultimately doesn't matter as we're claiming that "RAI is that you sleep in all normal conventions of the word and thus lose motor control and thusly fall prone and lose your held items". you're effectively arguing past us.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
If a rule isn't "written", how is it RAW?
Implicit rules are not written, yet understood.

And therefore they're not rules-as-written.

Quote:


Unwritten rules are not written, yet understood.

And therefore they're not rules-as-written.

I'd argue that their written in the collective writing of all of the pathfinder source material.


Bandw2 wrote:
Quote:


Rules as Written is important because (barring idiots who can't keep the three different rulesets straight), we can all agree on what the rules as written say, because anything "as written" can be quoted directly. (The only problem comes in when there are different printings and therefore different versions of RAW.)
while true, RAI is more important than RAW, and i'm not talking about Fake RAI where the intent is unclear, we all know RAI dead makes you dead, and you can't do actions or anything anymore. or how character walk normally on the ground or need oxygen to breath. etc etc etc

In general, I agree with you, with the stipulation that having fun is more important that RAI. Overpowering things are often not-fun (in fact, if they were fun, we wouldn't call them overpowering, just powerful), and the designers know that. So if there's an option out there that is overpoweringly strong, RAI is that it should be nerfed until things are fun.

There seem to be a lot of people on this thread that think that a first level spell being able to apply helpless plus prone plus disarmed is overpowering, no matter how realistic it is, and they're seizing on RAW to point out (correctly) that the designers did not intend for this spell to make the game not, and adding those additional conditions is not supported under RAW and makes the game not fun (in their opinion), and therefore cannot have been intended, either.


Bandw2 wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:
James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
If a rule isn't "written", how is it RAW?
Implicit rules are not written, yet understood.

And therefore they're not rules-as-written.

Quote:


Unwritten rules are not written, yet understood.

And therefore they're not rules-as-written.

I'd argue that their written in the collective writing of all of the pathfinder source material.

Show me them, then. If it's written, you can provide quotations.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:


Rules as Written is important because (barring idiots who can't keep the three different rulesets straight), we can all agree on what the rules as written say, because anything "as written" can be quoted directly. (The only problem comes in when there are different printings and therefore different versions of RAW.)

while true, RAI is more important than RAW, and i'm not talking about Fake RAI where the intent is unclear, we all know RAI dead makes you dead, and you can't do actions or anything anymore. or how character walk normally on the ground or need oxygen to breath. etc etc etc

In general, I agree with you, with the stipulation that having fun is more important that RAI. Overpowering things are often not-fun (in fact, if they were fun, we wouldn't call them overpowering, just powerful), and the designers know that. So if there's an option out there that is overpoweringly strong, RAI is that it should be nerfed until things are fun.

There seem to be a lot of people on this thread that think that a first level spell being able to apply helpless plus prone plus disarmed is overpowering, no matter how realistic it is, and they're seizing on RAW to point out (correctly) that the designers did not intend for this spell to make the game not, and adding those additional conditions is not supported under RAW and makes the game not fun (in their opinion), and therefore cannot have been intended, either.

I'm not sure I understand.

Are you claiming to understand the developers' intent here?


Bandw2 wrote:
RAW is an incomplete listing of the rules, you can't base ANYTHING wholesale on RAW. without intent then there is no meaning behind the world, or "ruling" as you would say.

You are going a step too far. You can't base anything on wholesale RAW alone, but you also can't base anything without using RAW at all.

Quote:
if your goal is to say "there's no RAW proof that you fall prone or drop your items" then congrats you can argue that point but it ultimately doesn't matter as we're claiming that "RAI is that you sleep in all normal conventions of the word and thus lose motor control and thusly fall prone and lose your held items". you're effectively arguing past us.

I've never argued that we are arguing the RAI. Obviously that's what we are doing. I'm not even saying which side is right, because there are reasonable arguments for either side. What I am saying is that RAW is Rules as Written. If it isn't written somewhere, it's not RAW.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Quote:


Rules as Written is important because (barring idiots who can't keep the three different rulesets straight), we can all agree on what the rules as written say, because anything "as written" can be quoted directly. (The only problem comes in when there are different printings and therefore different versions of RAW.)
while true, RAI is more important than RAW, and i'm not talking about Fake RAI where the intent is unclear, we all know RAI dead makes you dead, and you can't do actions or anything anymore. or how character walk normally on the ground or need oxygen to breath. etc etc etc

In general, I agree with you, with the stipulation that having fun is more important that RAI. Overpowering things are often not-fun (in fact, if they were fun, we wouldn't call them overpowering, just powerful), and the designers know that. So if there's an option out there that is overpoweringly strong, RAI is that it should be nerfed until things are fun.

There seem to be a lot of people on this thread that think that a first level spell being able to apply helpless plus prone plus disarmed is overpowering, no matter how realistic it is, and they're seizing on RAW to point out (correctly) that the designers did not intend for this spell to make the game not, and adding those additional conditions is not supported under RAW and makes the game not fun (in their opinion), and therefore cannot have been intended, either.

I'll admit that that point is far more plausible than "it wasn't written down". Still, not accounting for limited space, you'd expect some mention that sleep doesn't behave as the common English interpretation. oh, well best to wait til FAQ friday.


Kalindlara wrote:


I'm not sure I understand.

Are you claiming to understand the developers' intent here?

In so far as I claim that the developers' intent is to provide a fun game,.... yes, I feel confident making that claim.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Melkiador wrote:

RAW is not necessarily an interpretation or a ruling. Interpretations are drawn from RAW. Intent is separate from RAW, but used in combination with RAW to arrive at a ruling.

This still doesn't change the definition of the words Rules-As-Written.

There is no One True RAW

Situation like this where each side explains their position well and the other side doesn't budge, then both interpretations are RAW.

There is no other reasonable interpretation of the phrase Rules as Written, because both used the written rule to form their interpretation. Both used the rules as written.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:


I'm not sure I understand.

Are you claiming to understand the developers' intent here?

In so far as I claim that the developers' intent is to provide a fun game,.... yes, I feel confident making that claim.

Fun is subjective though. Obviously some players find one ruling fun, while others find another ruling more fun. It's impossible to say which one the devs prefer without being a dev.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:


I'm not sure I understand.

Are you claiming to understand the developers' intent here?

In so far as I claim that the developers' intent is to provide a fun game,.... yes, I feel confident making that claim.

You're not answering the question I asked, and you cut out the portion of the quote containing it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
Melkiador wrote:

RAW is not necessarily an interpretation or a ruling. Interpretations are drawn from RAW. Intent is separate from RAW, but used in combination with RAW to arrive at a ruling.

This still doesn't change the definition of the words Rules-As-Written.

There is no One True RAW

THERE IS ONLY ZUUL.

sorry, couldn't resist

101 to 150 of 209 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Does Sleep make you Prone? + Do you drop held items? All Messageboards