Change the definition of "rules-as-written" with respect to D&D 3.5

Question

The general consensus that "rules-as-written" with respect to D&D 3.5 means

the core rulebooks, followed by their errata, followed by any later published source book and it's errata that does not contradict a previously published rulebook.

This comes from a very strict reading of the blurbs included at the beginning of each source books' errata, without taking into account the clear intent of the provided examples. This text has changed over time (possibly complicating the matter). This text in the Spell Compendium's errata

When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source (actual rules text) is correct and any secondary reference (such as a table or character's statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically.

By the understanding of this text espoused on this site, a later published source book cannot change any rules covered in a previous source book; thus allowed only to create something new or add to something (although I would argue; this is change and in many cases, contradictory). This is evident by the discussions on the Rules Compendium. The RC is not even an entirely original work, but one that ties in expansion rules from various source books into on volume. By stating that the RC is in violation; the consensus says the RC sources are too in violation (all the Complete series, et al).

It is my understanding (quite contrary to the "consensus") that this text was to prevent an error in a table or a secondary reference from being propagated when it contradicted the primary reference. This was not intended to prevent source books and errata from changing, expanding, formalizing or otherwise creating contradictions to the existing rules.

This site's consensus invalidates any answer that quotes from any source that "contradicts" a previous source and stifles understanding. Further, it invalidates any answer that quotes an faq or rules of the game article, if "rules-as-written" is in the question tags.

Possible solutions,

1) Convince people to abandon this approach that invalidates much of the published material.

2) Create a new tag, rules-strict and use this for this narrow reading of the errata directive.

3) To avoid confusion, answer any question where a rule is mentioned in more than one reference with a section of rules-blocks;

• (Strict errata reading) information pertaining to original core books, DMG/PHB + it's own errata, disregard anything else

• (Errata reading where source book can alter the rule) Expansion
  source book + it's errata [likely only need to look to RC for 99%]

• (Additional material - technically non-RAW but may aid in
  understanding) Faq, web article, published adventure, et al

This seems a bit extreme, but would at least provide the OP with all the information and they can make an informed decision.

Answer 1

No

You are giving an edition specific example, Rules-as-written is system agnostic tag and should not be changed because one edition of D&D handles their rules canon in one particular way.

Answer 2

No.

1. We don't have the power to dictate how individuals or whole communities interpret a game, which is what you're asking us to do.

2. Even if we did have the power, using it in this matter contradicts our tags policy: tagging reflects how the wider RPG community uses a term, not how we at RPG.SE might like the term to be used.

To change the meaning of RAW in regards to D&D 3.5e, you have to go out there and change the existing community consensus until the majority of respected voices use it in the way you'd prefer. How to do that is left as an exercise for the reader…

Answer 3

I'm going to add an answer here which I think needs stating:

If someone asks for rules-as-written information, going so far as to tag their question with the rules-as-written tag, we can assume that they want answers based on the rules-as-written.

If they want answers that are reasonable when the rules-as-written aren't, which, let's face it, is a lot of the time, they can simply not ask for rules-as-written in the first place.

Your suggestion that the meaning of the rules-as-written tag be extended to include rules that, rules-as-written, aren't valid, is changing the meaning of the tag to be contrary to its name.

If you want a tag that includes all rules regardless of whether they are valid under the rules-as-written, I would absolutely agree that there could be space for it. (Not sure what I'd call it, but that's a different problem.)

Answer 4

I think there's a misunderstanding here.

When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source (actual rules text) is correct and any secondary reference (such as a table or character's statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically.

And this:

It is my understanding (quite contrary to the "consensus") that this text was to prevent an error in a table or a secondary reference from being propagated when it contradicted the primary reference. This was not intended to prevent source books and errata from changing, expanding, formalizing or otherwise creating contradictions to the existing rules.

You're right. That is what that text means. An example case is one of the classes in Complete Divine, where the text says "each level, gain a spellcasting level", but the table only shows it every other level. The text you quoted is meant to fix that type of editing error.

What you're disputing is different text:

Another example of primary [versus] secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

The whole mess is outlined effectively in this answer. But in a nutshell, what happened is the books and the errata say "the books and their errata are primary and overrule everything else". So if what the book says and what a web article or FAQ entry say, even if written by the same person who wrote the rules, even if the article/FAQ came out later, and even if it was specifically created to fix some confusing nonsense in the books, the books win. It reaches extreme nonsense levels when the Rules Compendium gets involved...

Don't Worry So Much About It!

The spirit of rules-as-written is that you should answer the question citing the rules. For that purpose, just ignore the FAQ/web articles and stick to books when dealing with D&D 3.5, and you will be doing the right thing 99% of the time (cases where a published book contradict another published book in a way that'd mess this up are rare enough that you shouldn't lose sleep over it).

If the RAW answer results in something that doesn't make sense, it's perfectly acceptable to add another section to your answer addressing that. Here's a simple example where I did that.

The first part of the answer addresses the question by RAW (no rule quotes are needed since the question already quotes the relevant rule). The second part is how I'd play it in a real game, because the RAW is kinda weird here.

It's in that second part where if you want to bring in secondary sources (or even homebrew, like KRyan's alternate flying rules), you should feel free to do so. Just make sure that you've already answered the RAW question with primary sources before you do that. I've used this approach successfully for quite a while

Yep, it can be a bit quirky. But quirky describes a lot of 3.5. ;)

Other Games

Other games don't handle this the same way. Pathfinder is the most obvious example, as one of the game designers making a ruling on the Paizo forum is considered valid RAW. 20pfsrd.org will often be updated with those rulings, and there's a FAQ list out there as well.

If you're not sure what counts as RAW for a given game, then you can list what source you're using, or ask in a comment on the question what sources are considered acceptable.

Answer 5

@JoshuaAslanSmith is correct in that the tag is of general application and so there's not really anything related to the tag we can/should do to mitigate this problem.

Now, in terms of your real problem (people not accepting later books in their understanding of RAW on 3.5e questions) - yes, you're right, it seems like the majority of vocal 3.5e folks on this site have a very... strict reading of the books and don't recognize newer books, the FAQ, the Rules Compendium, etc. Does the Rules Compendium overrule the core books? illustrates this. You could hold a referendum just on changing the site attitude here, but given the voting on that fairly recent question I suspect you won't make headway. I strongly agree with you that this stance places some strange form of barracks-lawyering well above the value of practical, working game fun, but that appears to be the predominant local 3.5e players' mode d'emploi, so you just have to accept that at some level.

I would recommend just posting your answers and sticking to your guns. I personally vote up an answer that has a reasonable basis in "The FAQ says" or "A later 3.5e book says." The answer to the RC question has nothing to do with the validity of an answer of that sort. It may pull downvotes from those who disagree, and that's the risk you take. Feel free and flag/point out anywhere that overzealous community members may be crossing the line from voting their conscience to trying to muffle reasonable viewpoints and the mods will take action. Of course, there are questions where someone's after super-strict RAW, and other kinds of answers might not necessarily be welcome there. But for those asking for "I don't understand, how's this supposed to work," answers based on those other sources are IMO super useful.