The Deontology Rule: when RAI supercedes RAW

[Alpha]

As a direct consequence of the debate over the warlock at-wills, I got to thinking.
The argument has come down to a small point of rules, with everyone involved admitting that it's very clear that the RAI does not support 4 warlock at-wills.
Some consequences from this admission:
1.  The idea of 4 warlock at-wills is entirely unusable for CO work.
2.  Even Theoretical Optimizers will be unlikely to use it, as there is no gray area surrounding the intention of the rules: even if the rules by strict literal interpretation grand extra at-wills powers to warlocks, there is insufficient support for any claim by any player anywhere that they should be allowed to play by it.  Granted, TO deals with some pretty sketchy rules interpretation as it is, but they still depend on ambiguity in those rules to squeeze their dubious combos in.  There is no ambiguity in the structure of the rules regarding warlock at-wills, even if the language itself is hazy.

This is not the only case of this, just the most recent example.

Therefore, I propose a general guideline for CO/TO:

The Deontology Rule
A corollary to the Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization, for special cases.

Those who know calculus may find the concept of limits helpful here.
Given that a particular rule is absolutely clear in its intent(RAI), and
Given that the RAW for the same rule is less clear or even states something different,
Therefore the RAW in such a case should be treated as entirely subordinate to the RAI.

If it looks like a fish, smells like a fish, and tastes like a fish, and cooks like a fish, treat it like a fish!

This is already subsumed in the Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization, but I think it steps a bit further:  when it gets to the point that a particular point of RAW is rendered completely pointless(for both TO and CO) by a sufficiently clear RAI, it's equally pointless to debate the RAW on that issue.

The Warlock at-wills is a good example: while there is obviously a good case being made in the actual RAW of the issue, the fact that absolutely no one thinks that's the way the rules are meant(not even just what the designers wanted to happen, we're talking the entire way the system is designed to function, and everyone knows it) implies that arguing about it is both useless and silly.

For all intents and purposes, Warlocks only get 2 at-wills.  Is there anyone who argues that?  No.  The argument is about the literal meaning of the words.  Yet that argument is moot.  Do you see the contradiction?

The basic application of the Deontology Rule is simple:  when the RAI is clear enough that the RAW "might as well" mean the same thing, the CO community should treat it as such.
About the most attention the 4 warlock at-wills theory should get is as a curiosity and a recommendation for errata.  In all our work, both Theoretical and Practical, we should treat the rule as if it follows the RAI...and indeed we will.


Now how does that sound?  Is there anything I should add or revise?  Anything I missed?  Am I barking up the wrong tree?

[Chemus]

The premise has promise. (Yes, I just went there )

The example confuses me, though. The RAW says explicitly:

A warlock can use any invocation he knows at will,with the following qualifications...

What are you referring to? Now if we're talking about when he can replace invocations known, that's a different kettle of story.

Back to the main topic though. The RAI can be a bit slippery, and there should be remarkably few cases where this Deontology rule crops up. It's easy to get into a 'rule 0' type of debate if too many instances of this are cited, IMO. Good proposal overall though.

[Alpha]

The premise has promise. (Yes, I just went there )

The example confuses me, though. The RAW says explicitly:

A warlock can use any invocation he knows at will,with the following qualifications...

What are you referring to? Now if we're talking about when he can replace invocations known, that's a different kettle of story.

Back to the main topic though. The RAI can be a bit slippery, and there should be remarkably few cases where this Deontology rule crops up. It's easy to get into a 'rule 0' type of debate if too many instances of this are cited, IMO. Good proposal overall though.

Invocations are 3.5e, the warlock debate is 4e(just like this board), and is ongoing over at Gleemax.

[Chemus]

Oh wow. I did not look a the forum listing on the 'All unread topics' sort. My apologies; please disregard the confusion about the example.