"RAW" and what it means (at least to me)

[tivadar27]

So, let's be clear and upfront: RAW is definitely something that exists and is referenced, particularly in the PFS guide:
"Scenarios are meant to be run as written, with no addition or subtraction to the number of monsters (unless indicated in the scenario), or changes to armor, feats, items, skills, spells, statistics, traits, or weapons."
"As a Pathfinder Society GM, you have the right and responsibility to make whatever judgments, within the rules, that you feel are necessary at your table to ensure everyone has a fair and fun experience. This does not mean you can contradict rules or restrictions outlined in this document, a published Pathfinder source, errata document, or official FAQ on paizo.com."

Still, that leaves a lot of leeway for interpretation, so I'd like to discuss the various levels of what I see as RAW vs RAI. First, I'll provide an example of each of these:
1. Clearly RAW: The game says to roll 1d20 on attacks, but your GM decides they want you to use 1d10 instead.
2. IMO RAW: I believe it's clear in the rules that Battle Medicine doesn't require a Healer's Kit, but enough people think that I'm wrong to create doubt.
3. IMO Ambiguous, but likely RAI: I think Telekinetic Projectile was intended to be a ranged spell attack, but it doesn't say so explicitly in the rules.
4. Clearly Ambiguous: What's the DC to Climb a Dragon?

Okay, so this last one really doesn't matter. It's effectively something that everyone agrees is odd, and make it up as you see fit, but for the rest, I adjudicate in very distinct ways.

For 1: I will always follow this as a GM. If I see a GM *not* following this and I point it out to them, I expect them to fix it or give me a good argument for why it's not RAW. If they don't and keep playing this way, I might actually consider reporting them to an event coordinator (note: this has never actually happened).

For 2: I will always follow this as a GM. If I see a GM *not* following it, well, that's okay. I might let them know later that I don't think that's how things are supposed to be and why, but I acknowledge it's ambiguous. I might make an exception as a GM if it clearly breaks a character's build and I don't think it's overly egregious.

For 3: I will always allow whatever interpretation the player prefers/is most advantageous to them. As a player, I will typically ask what the GM does before trying to do the thing.

Curious how others run this/treat the situation? It seems as if #2 and #3 are probably the most contentious here. Given RAW has come up a couple times throughout these threads (and whether it exists at all...), I thought it useful to have an actual discussion about the somewhat meta-topic. Also, people might disagree with my classifications entirely, and define RAW in a somewhat different way.

[Baarogue]

1. ಠ_ಠ Have you even heard of a GM doing this, or is this a straw-man intended to illustrate a clearly "unacceptable" breach of RAW in a PFS game?

2. Doesn't seem like that big a deal to me. It's a 1-action activity with the manipulate trait. Seems clear to me that it's not supposed to be a terribly burdensome activity. Practically anyone who has the feat likely has Healer's Tools anyway so I suspect anyone arguing about it is just theorycrafting and hasn't actually had a tabletop fight over it. The important detail to me is: if the player insists they don't need Healer's Tools, then they also can't benefit from any bonuses associated with them, like with the upgraded tools. If I was GMing, I would require the tools but I'm not going to argue with a GM who doesn't, nor would I argue with a player who pushed back - I would simply point out the note I mentioned above. For my own character, I plan to have my Healer's Tools in a bandolier.

3. Again, doesn't seem that big a deal. As a GM, I would rule that it's clearly a ranged spell attack roll since the damage gains the caster's spellcasting ability modifier. I don't see any GM aside from maybe a particularly dickish one insisting a caster use their likely inferior Dex modifier for the ranged attack. I suspect the same thing is going on in arguments about this one as with Battle Medicine, and won't lose any sleep over the issue unless it happens at a table I play at.

[The-Magic-Sword]

4. Actually thats very simple, what level is the dragon?

[Draco18s]

Baarogue wrote:

1. ಠ_ಠ Have you even heard of a GM doing this, or is this a straw-man intended to illustrate a clearly "unacceptable" breach of RAW in a PFS game?

The latter, I believe. Things where the GM in question has stated some ruling with the qualifier "...at my table" when whatever it was that they said is in clear contradiction with what's actually written.

The example could just as easily have been "Battle Medic doesn't exist."

[tivadar27]

Draco18s wrote:

Baarogue wrote:

1. ಠ_ಠ Have you even heard of a GM doing this, or is this a straw-man intended to illustrate a clearly "unacceptable" breach of RAW in a PFS game?

The latter, I believe. Things where the GM in question has stated some ruling with the qualifier "...at my table" when whatever it was that they said is in clear contradiction with what's actually written.

The example could just as easily have been "Battle Medic doesn't exist."

Accurate. I wanted to provide an example on either end that was clearly not debatable by RAW. Kinda by definition, most of the questions asked on here don't apply, so I took something that no one can really debate citing even esoteric readings of the rules.

"Straw man", however, is probably not the correct term here. I'm not setting it up as something to batter down, just wanted something that was definitive and everyone could agree on. "Battle Medic does not exist" would also suffice. Or "I don't like this feat at my table, so I don't allow it" in general.