Stop saying 'this rule is broken', dipshits.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'm tired of hearing that word continually watered down because people use it as a synonym for overpowered.

It's lazy to lump things like a ranger's minor action powers or Bloodclaw weapons into the broken category because you just want to have a snappy objection to 'I don't like it'. When you intentionally try to obfuscate these things with things that do genuinely cause the game to grind to a halt like Divine Miracle or Yogi Hat Rangers in some haphazard attempt to make a minor game balance issue look worse, you're being dishonest you asshole.

Broken has ceased to become a useful adjective because of you. So here are the occasions where you can claim a rule is broken:

1) If there's a clear contradiction with that rule with other rules.

2) If a rule that is needed for gameplay is incomplete to the point of uselessness or nonfunctionality.

3) If a rule is so vague as to have two or more valid interpretations.

4) If a rule's usage as-is would cause gameplay to grind to a halt.

5) If a rule accomplishes a different function from its design intent to the point of completely obviating its purpose.

Use 'broken' for those things. Nothing else.

[Murtak]

4) If a rule's usage as-is would cause gameplay to grind to a halt.

This is the only needed definition for "broken". If it doesn't at least alter gameplay to the point where you can't recognize your game anymore it's not broken.

Edit: I agree though, "broken" is overused to the point of uselessness.

[Koumei]

Note that many words have become other ways of saying "something I don't like". Weeaboo and May Sue particularly.

Anyway, those terms pretty much do cover it. I mean, I'd say there's a problem with "A Word in Your Ear, General" (Callidus Assassin, 40K) as part of the Assassin Execution Force in Apocalypse:

the rule can be read three different ways. One lets you move one target (6"*number of Callies) and choose which way it faces. Another lets you move (number of Callies) targets 6" each and choose which way they face. The final lets you move any number of enemy models a combined total of (6"*number of Callies) and choose which way they all face (meaning 3 Callies decide 18 enemy tanks each move 1" and turn around to expose their rear armour).

Needless to say, it can cause plenty of arguments as each side wants that rule to work in their own favour. Oh but wait, they have the superb rule of "If we can't write clearly, just roll for it!" Well done, guys. Wankers.

I guess a simpler example is the Area 1 of Cloud of Daggers: it's broken because we don't know how it works, so every game involves arguing with the DM.

As for definition 1, I'm not sure - usually that's not an issue, because they have the "X trumps Y" (and in 4E it's "this thing here trumps the general rule. It's meant to contradict (and ignore) the basic rule"). But I suppose if the one ability says two things that contradict each other then you have a problem.

[PhoneLobster]

Think of this broken thing as a success.

Five years ago it would have been some rant about how it's a munchkin rule or some crap.

If technical criticisms of rules function has gained so much respect that idiots are trying to steal that respect to cover for their attacks on stuff then that's kind of both good and bad news.

You know, half full, half empty, MY CUP IS BROKEN!

[Lago PARANOIA]

And while we're on the subject, if a rule is broken then stop saying 'rules as intended' as if that should mean anything.

RAI should only mean anything when a rule is broken per one of the definitions I provided but we still need its use to continue the game--but for some reason you've decided that the intent of the person who provided this dumbass rule is still important. The question of why you would put so much trust on the opinion of someone who already fucked something up this bad is an exercise for the reader.

Regardless, if you do reach a situation like this then just grow a spine and say 'there's two possible interpretations of these unclear rules and I'm going with the more restrictive one because I fucking think it'll be better for the game''. Do NOT go 'there's two possible interpretations of these unclear rules and I'm going with the more restrictive one because I think some invisible book fairy wanted me to play like that'.

Seriously, it makes you look like a simpering tool when you say 'my personal opinion is rules as intended!!!'. Stop saying that.

[Koumei]

Yeah, that gets brought up all the time by people who don't like the flasked avenger - clearly, Collins and Skip phoned them up and said "Yeah, it was totally our intent that you not be allowed to sneak attack with flasks".

[Psychic Robot]

Overland Flight is broken. Players can outright bypass my encounters! My entire plot depended on them going through the Mines of Moria, but they flew over them. WTF IS THIS SHIT

Regardless, if you do reach a situation like this then just grow a spine and say 'there's two possible interpretations of these unclear rules and I'm going with the more restrictive one because I fucking think it'll be better for the game''.

Or just say "RAI" for shorthand. Though the entire term "RAI" exists because of the "RAW is law" assholes, so the point is largely moot. Ambiguous rulings most often result in the invocation of "RAI," and that's a perfectly fair justification. Sure, you could argue that drowning can save the life of a dying person (per the RAW), but "fuck you, I'm using RAI" is a fine line of reasoning. At least, it works for me. But then again, that basically shuts the entire debate down, so whatever.

Does that always mean that RAI is better for the game? No. There are a number of cases in which RAI most decidedly worse for the game. (There are also a number of cases in which RAW is decidedly worse for the game, so that's beside the point. See repairing magical objects for sodomy.) However, wanting to play as the developers intended isn't an unfair objection in the least--you're already playing their product, so you might as well deal with the rules in a manner that they intended.

At this point, I'm rambling, but I recall a debate about whether or not polymorph/shapechange granted the ability to cast spells. It involved people flailing and arguing with what seems to be an open-and-shut case of RAW, and they ended up using all sorts of nifty logical contortions to support the claim that the two spells don't grant spellcasting. In the end, the entire debate could have been settled by, "Be that as it may, I'm going to use the RAI."

As a further example, let us look at the rogue's bonus feats. They do not specify that one must meet the feat's prerequisites. There are two ways to interpret this: either that the rogue doesn't need to meet the prerequisites, or that the rogue does need to meet the prerequisites even though the text neglects this. Is there anything particularly game-shattering about the rogue's ability to take Whirlwind Attack without first slogging through a shitty feat chain? No. However, the RAI are that the rogue needs to have the feat prerequisites, and it's pretty obvious that the designers just fucked up/got lazy. Still, I would rule with the RAI in this case (since there is no RAW), which is that the rogue must meet the prerequisites of the feat to take it--not because the rogue is going to break the game if he doesn't need to meet the prerequisites, mind you, but because that's how the designers intended.

And, as a final example that is related, let's talk about the cleric's free Weapon Focus feat if he takes the War Domain. RAW, the ruling is ambiguous. RAI, it's pretty clear that he doesn't need to meet the prerequisites. Therefore, I would rule in the less restrictive manner in this scenario--not because it is better for the game, mind you, but because that's how the developers intended the class feature to work.

[Absentminded_Wizard]

Seriously, it makes you look like a simpering tool when you say 'my personal opinion is rules as intended!!!'. Stop saying that.

Has somebody been hanging around at ENWorld lately?

But seriously, Rules as Intended is a radically overused concept. There are so few situations in which you can clearly tell what the intent behind a rule was anyway. 90% of the time, RAI is somebody's pathetic attempt to put the stamp of "official" designer approval on somebody's own houserule or idea of how the rule *should* work.

Edit: And PR, most of your examples aren't RAI; they're RTMS (rules that make sense).

[Murtak]

At this point, I'm rambling, but I recall a debate about whether or not polymorph/shapechange granted the ability to cast spells. It involved people flailing and arguing with what seems to be an open-and-shut case of RAW, and they ended up using all sorts of nifty logical contortions to support the claim that the two spells don't grant spellcasting. In the end, the entire debate could have been settled by, "Be that as it may, I'm going to use the RAI."

I seriously doubt anyone could ever actually divine the exact intent of even one version of the Polymorph spell. If there is a paragon example of the game breaking because of unclear rules it is that fucking spell. You don't even need to try to abuse anything, you are just using the spell as a disguise and someone asks an innocent question and 5 hours later the DM, by that time hoarse from quoting scattered rules and rulings, finally bans the spell (if he's smart).

Seriously, Polymorph is the best example of what kind of problems you can't solve with "RAI".

[RandomCasualty2]

Seriously, Polymorph is the best example of what kind of problems you can't solve with "RAI".

Yeah, most of the problematic spells, you really can't solve with RAI.

[Previn]

I've always assumed that in D&D the point was to use a combination of RAW and RAI with the default of which to use being the one that promoted the most fun among your play group.

I honestly have never understood the zealous need to hold to one or the other except as it relates to discussing the game system itself.

[zeruslord]

Dude, that's what we talk about on this board. Also, it's essential to know what set of rules you are talking about if you are going to talk to anyone outside your current gaming group.

[Maxus]

Well, here's my view on RAI.

Remember my Damocles' Ingot thread, which uses Major Creation and some kind of platform to make many, many cubic feet of gold and drop it from a great height?

I shared that with someone, and his first response was, "DMG says you can't use spells for a purpose they're not intended."

Which raises the question of how he knows that. Or what Major Creation's purpose is. I mean, as far as I can tell, its purpose is to create large quantities of a temporary subtance. What you do with it after you conjure it up is up to you.

I guess I'm more in favor of using RAW (within reason) and rewarding creativity, than trying to come up with bullshit answers about why it won't work.

[Grek]

I've always assumed that in D&D the point was to use a combination of RAW and RAI with the default of which to use being the one that promoted the most fun among your play group.

I honestly have never understood the zealous need to hold to one or the other except as it relates to discussing the game system itself.

If RAW doesn't work, but RAI does, you should update or errata the RAW untill it says the same thing as RAI. That's what the Den does, it takes the RAW that doesn't do the things we want it to be doing and change it into something that does.

[Crissa]

Ugh, 'working as intended' when they tell me it was supposed to do X, but in practice it does Y, so it must have really meant Y not X. AUGH.

That's a bug, guys, just report it and get on with your lives. Don't argue with me that it isn't as I observed it or it isn't as it was read.

-Crissa

[Psychic Robot]

That's what the Den does, it takes the RAW that doesn't do the things we want it to be doing and change it into something that does.

Oftentimes without changing the actual wording.

[Murtak]

I've always assumed that in D&D the point was to use a combination of RAW and RAI with the default of which to use being the one that promoted the most fun among your play group.

I honestly have never understood the zealous need to hold to one or the other except as it relates to discussing the game system itself.

There is no way to divine "what is intended". At best you are guessing, and you will be wrong where you never expected to be. But whats more important, what may be obvious to you may be obviously false to someone else at the table.

Example:
Polymorph is supposed to grant "natural qualities". That term is never defined anywhere, much less referenced on monster entries. You change into a dwarf. Do you gain Darkvision? The save bonus? The racial weapon profiency?

The rules don't say and all you can do is guess. If I remember correctly you get the save bonus and proficiency but not the darkvision, which makes no sense at all but is apparently "RAI".

And that is why we discuss RAW - because RAI is an unworkable mess of guesswork and opinion.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Sometimes we're lucky enough to get real honest-to-Koresh RAI. But only when the creator of said rule comes out and tells us just what the spoot they were thinking.

Of course, the people most known for this are Skip Williams, Andy Collins, and Mike Mearls. So it mostly just makes us cry bitter tears. But still.


Seriously, sorcerer metamagic? What the FUCK, Skip?

[Username17]

I don't know what you could possibly not understand about the rules as intended about Polymorph.

Goblinoid Subtype

You get the following:

-- All goblinoids speak Goblin. (You don't suddenly speak Goblin just by changing form.)

Sheesh, how easy is that? You get the ability to speak Goblin but you don't suddenly speak Goblin. RAI, straight from the horse's mouth.

-Username17

[virgil]

I remember seeing Monte Cook come out and stating that the Caster Level on magic items from the DMG weren't supposed to be there (old notes that people forgot to remove), and the required levels for creation are whatever the minimum are to cast the spells in the Prerequisite section.

Figures that would be the one time that my DM decided that RaW > RAI, and thus couldn't craft wings of flying until I was 10th level & would never be able to make sovereign glue/universal solvent.

EDIT: Oh yeah, and the primary objective that was stopped was my plan of home-made pearls of power, since the DM had them arbitrarily difficult to find.

[Flumph]

Goblinoid Subtype

You get the following:

-- All goblinoids speak Goblin. (You don't suddenly speak Goblin just by changing form.)

Sheesh, how easy is that? You get the ability to speak Goblin but you don't suddenly speak Goblin. RAI, straight from the horse's mouth.

-Username17

WTF!

Did Skip just come off of a bender before writing that?

[Kaelik]

Did Skip just come off of a bender before writing that?

Don't be silly. Skip never comes off a bender. He's been on the same one for 10+ years now.

[zeruslord]

Angel Subtype

You get the following:

-- Immunity to acid, cold, and petrification. (Immunity is a natural ability.)

-- +4 racial bonus on saves against poison. (Another natural ability.)

You don't get the following:

-- Darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision. (Extraordinary special quality.)

-- Resistance to electricity 10 and fire 10. (Extraordinary special quality.)

-- Protective Aura. (Supernatural ability.)

-- Tongues. (Supernatural ability.)

What the fvck? You get immunities but not energy resistance because Cold Immunity is perfectly natural but Fire Resistance 10 is Extraordinary? The SRD backs this up, but it is so clearly retarded bullshit that should have been errataed or just ignored.