# What does RAW stand for?



## Tyrrell (May 27, 2005)

Folks here use the acronym RAW frequently

What does it mean?

Rules as Written?
Ridiculus Agravation from WotC?
Read it And Weep?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (May 27, 2005)

Heh.  Aren't you funny.


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 27, 2005)

Tyrrell said:
			
		

> Folks here use the acronym RAW frequently
> 
> What does it mean?
> 
> ...



All of the above.


Spoiler



Are you serious or not?


----------



## Tyrrell (May 27, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Heh.  Aren't you funny.




No, I'm serious what does it mean?


----------



## Jdvn1 (May 27, 2005)

Tyrrell said:
			
		

> No, I'm serious what does it mean?



Rules As Written.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (May 27, 2005)

It means Rules As Written.  Since you had it listed followed by some insults towards WotC, I assumed you were trolling. 

There are even arguments as to what RAW is, but it's really only the core books (PH, DMG, MM) plus the errata for D&D and the SRD for d20.  All other sources, including official sources like other WotC books, the FAQ, third-party material, etc. are technically houserules.

Some people view RAW as any work by WotC, including the FAQ.

Hope this is a more helpful response for you. I apologize for my previous reply.


----------



## Shuffle (May 27, 2005)

Also usually used by a player trying to justify a horribly broken PC.  

  "But it's allowed by RAW", followed quickly by "Not allowed by DM Fiat"


----------



## Alzrius (May 27, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> There are even arguments as to what RAW is, but it's really only the core books (PH, DMG, MM) plus the errata for D&D and the SRD for d20.  All other sources, including official sources like other WotC books, the FAQ, third-party material, etc. are technically houserules.
> 
> Some people view RAW as any work by WotC, including the FAQ.




The latter interpretation does seem to make more sense, IMHO. After all, someone asking for the RAW on warlocks from _Complete Arcane_ isn't going to be given answers of "it works however you want since it's a house rule."


----------



## Kae'Yoss (May 28, 2005)

It's the opposite of COOKED


----------



## S'mon (May 28, 2005)

RAW is the fearsome god of Law who rules the Rules Forum.  Appeals to His terrible name are made by His acolytes in their battles against the heathen invaders from the terrible Chaos realms of the House Rules.


----------



## Asmo (May 28, 2005)

S'mon said:
			
		

> RAW is the fearsome god of Law who rules the Rules Forum.  Appeals to His terrible name are made by His acolytes in their battles against the heathen invaders from the terrible Chaos realms of the House Rules.




Ehh..are we talking about Hypersmurf?

Asmo


----------



## IronWolf (May 29, 2005)

Tyrrell said:
			
		

> No, I'm serious what does it mean?




A join date of July 2002, hhhmmm....


----------



## Tyrrell (May 29, 2005)

IronWolf said:
			
		

> A join date of July 2002, hhhmmm....





Yes please notice that my number of posts is fairly small.  I've been away since November 2002 or so.  The acronym "RAW" was not used frequently before I left.


----------



## galaga88 (May 29, 2005)

I'm glad somebody besides me asked this question and got ridiculed for it, since we both apparently committed the crime of not having been around the boards for a while.


----------



## Kae'Yoss (May 29, 2005)

galaga88 said:
			
		

> I'm glad somebody besides me asked this question and got ridiculed for it, since we both apparently committed the crime of not having been around the boards for a while.




GET THE INFIDEL! WHY DON'T WE JUST SACRIFICE HIM TO OUR GOOOOOD?


----------



## Laman Stahros (May 29, 2005)

Asmo said:
			
		

> Ehh..are we talking about Hypersmurf?
> 
> Asmo




No, he's the high priest of RAW.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (May 29, 2005)

galaga88 said:
			
		

> I'm glad somebody besides me asked this question and got ridiculed for it, since we both apparently committed the crime of not having been around the boards for a while.



 You don't get ridiculed for asking questions.  You get ridiculed for how you ask them.  Such as: ask a question, provide the answer yourself in the same post, then insult a bunch of people while you're at it.  It is, by definition, a troll; and that's what got ridiculed.


----------



## Darkness (May 30, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It is, by definition, a troll



 That's a house rule. The RAW definition of troll is:







> *Monster Manual 3.5, page 247:*
> Trolls are horrid carnivores found in all climes, from arctic wastelands to tropical jungles.




More seriously, the "troll" label is thrown around way too casually lately. If you don't like a thread, you may feel free not to read it and instead check out the thousands of others on these boards.


----------



## Tyrrell (May 30, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> You don't get ridiculed for asking questions.  You get ridiculed for how you ask them.  Such as: ask a question, provide the answer yourself in the same post, then insult a bunch of people while you're at it.  It is, by definition, a troll; and that's what got ridiculed.




Who exactly are you under the misimpression that I insulted?


----------



## Cheiromancer (May 30, 2005)

I think there has been a misunderstanding, and everyone should just move on.

I know that when I have a question, I often put out possible answers- sometimes one of them is even the correct one.  That's what Tyrrell did.

Tyrell, the first answer you gave was correct, and the other ones were sorta sarcastic/funny.  So it looked like you knew what the answer was.  So why would someone ask a question if they seem to know the answer already?  Maybe you were trying to make a joke?  The date joined made it seem like you are an old-timer, and so you that seemed to be the best bet.  Then when you said you didn't know it seemed like you were trying to waste people's time and draw them out into unnecessary discussion.  That could be construed as a trolling kind of post.

So it was a coincidence and some misleading circumstantial evidence.  And some of us might have been too quick to judge.  But I really hope that there will be no hard feelings from anyone about this.

ENWorld is generally a very friendly board, really, but there are occasional breakdowns in communication.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (May 30, 2005)

Tyrrell said:
			
		

> Who exactly are you under the misimpression that I insulted?



 WotC, of course.  Who did you think? Read your first post again, now that you hopefully understand my responses.  If you don't understand my point about trolling (i.e. attempting to draw people into an unnecessary and heated debate, usually lead off with an insult -- not the hairy monster from the MM), then I'd be happy to explain.  Apparently, you didn't intend it and that's fine.  I'm not tossing around 'troll' lightly, but what I think is occurring too frequently are insults without people even realizing they're being insulting.


----------



## Eltern (May 30, 2005)

Is anybody else suprised that this thread is already 20 posts long?   I couldn't possibly imagine anything worth bickering about from the thread topic, but I see new things every day  

I had heard "Rules According to Wizards," myself. ::shrug::


----------

