Sage Advice: Not For Attacking Others

[Easy_Lee]

D&D 5e encourages DMs to make Rulings, Not Rules. But what does that mean?

The core idea is simple: 5e is rules-light compared with previous editions, and the DM is encouraged to make rulings as he or she deems appropriate. This removed the implicit expectation that DMs will follow the rules as written, or as intended. It also reduced the need for lengthy house rules.

As such, the purpose of Sage Advice changed somewhat. From the WotC website on Sage Advice:

In a typical D&D session, a DM makes numerous rules decisions—some barely noticeable and others quite obvious. Players also interpret the rules, and the whole group keeps the game running. There are times, though, when the design intent of a rule isn’t clear or when one rule seems to contradict another.

Dealing with those situations is where Sage Advice comes in. This column doesn’t replace a DM’s adjudication. Just as the rules do, the column is meant to give DMs, as well as players, tools for tuning the game according to their tastes. The column should also reveal some perspectives that help you see parts of the game in a new light and that aid you in fine-tuning your D&D experience.


As we can see, the intent of Sage Advice is to offer assistance, not to dictate play. Hence, using Sage Advice to belittle or invalidate another poster's argument or ruling is not only rude, but also goes against the intent of Sage Advice in the first place.

I'd like to ask everyone to please be courteous and not use Sage Advice to attack others. One ruling is no more valid than any other.

[JackOfAllBuilds]

One Rule to rule them all.

(Wheatons Law: Don't be a d**k)

[smcmike]

While I agree that Sage Advice shouldn't be used to attack or belittle others, the problem there is attacking or belittling others, not using Sage Advice.

Using it as a tool to support your argument about a ruling is not attacking or belittling others. I do agree that it's worth remembering that SA is not meant to be the final word on the subject, and should not be treated as such.

On the other hand, I disagree with the notion that every ruling is equally valid. There are plenty of situations where there are two or more equally valid rulings, but there are also plenty of rulings that are not valid.

[Easy_Lee]

While I agree that Sage Advice shouldn't be used to attack or belittle others, the problem there is attacking or belittling others, not using Sage Advice.

Using it as a tool to support your argument about a ruling is not attacking or belittling others. I do agree that it's worth remembering that SA is not meant to be the final word on the subject, and should not be treated as such.

On the other hand, I disagree with the notion that every ruling is equally valid. There are plenty of situations where there are two or more equally valid rulings, but there are also plenty of rulings that are not valid.

Define "invalid" and give an example of an invalid ruling, if you would.

[BurgerBeast]

Define "invalid"...

Why are you asking someone to define a term that was never used?


...and give an example of an invalid ruling, if you would.

If you want to grapple this opponent you need to make a dexterity check to grab hold, and then an opposed strength roll to maintain the hold.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Dear Sage Advice,

Was Gandalf a demigod? I need to smack down some people in an internet argument and would really appreciate any ammo you can give me.

PS. He killed a balrog with a toothbrush.

[Tanarii]

Things you left out:
Sage Advice is the official interpretation of the rule. "Official rulings on how to interpret unclear rules are made in Sage Advice."

Sage Advice provides an official interpretation of the unclear rule in several ways: RAW, RAI, and RAF.

What you're quoting is the part explaining that Sage Advice is not intended to overrule a DM's decision on how to run the rule at his table. It's just telling you the official interpretation of the rule.

For forum debate purposes, you certainly can tell someone you've decided to interpret & adjudicate the rule differently at your table. But that doesn't stop SA from being the official interpretation of the rule.

[BurchardOfEn]

For forum debate purposes, you certainly can tell someone you've decided to interpret & adjudicate the rule differently at your table. But that doesn't stop SA from being the official interpretation of the rule.

Hold up, stop the presses right here. Don't you know that official rulings clearly mean nothing more than rulings and that all rulings are equal even if there's an obvious distinction noted by the fact that there are "official rulings" and "unofficial rulings."

It's a strange world that we live in.


Define "invalid" and give an example of an invalid ruling, if you would.

I'll give an example of a ruling that is obviously "less valid" if you so desire. "Whirlwind Attack is a bunch of attacks against any creatures that you can reach using your move speed. You also receive the benefits of the Fly spell while using Whirlwind Attack because the word Whirlwind is in there."

Of course, you can note that no one has made the argument that Whirlwind Attack is that (I hope no one has at least), but I'm giving a hypothetical example of a ruling that is clearly less valid. If you don't see how this ruling would be considered less valid than the primary two(1 attack w/ multiple attack rolls & attack # = # of enemies within 5 feet) , then I kinda have to wonder how you maintain any set of rules/rulings.

[R.Shackleford]

Dear Sage Advice,

Was Gandalf a demigod? I need to smack down some people in an internet argument and would really appreciate any ammo you can give me.

PS. He killed a balrog with a toothbrush.

Level 100 Red Mage named Claire. Gandalf is just so old that you can't tell their sex/gender.

[Easy_Lee]

I'll give an example of a ruling that is obviously "less valid" if you so desire. "Whirlwind Attack is a bunch of attacks against any creatures that you can reach using your move speed. You also receive the benefits of the Fly spell while using Whirlwind Attack because the word Whirlwind is in there."

Of course, you can note that no one has made the argument that Whirlwind Attack is that (I hope no one has at least), but I'm giving a hypothetical example of a ruling that is clearly less valid. If you don't see how this ruling would be considered less valid than the primary two(1 attack w/ multiple attack rolls & attack # = # of enemies within 5 feet) , then I kinda have to wonder how you maintain any set of rules/rulings.

We'll have to define what's a ruling and what's a rule, then. To my thinking, rulings include anything which is either ambiguous and open to interpretation, or has no associated rules. As in, if it requires you to ask Sage Advice, then chances are it's a ruling.

The whole whirlwind equals fly thing would pretty clearly be a rules change, as the text says nothing about that. Whirlwind making one or multiple attacks would be a ruling.

[LaserFace]

D&D 5e encourages DMs to make Rulings, Not Rules. But what does that mean?

The core idea is simple: 5e is rules-light compared with previous editions, and the DM is encouraged to make rulings as he or she deems appropriate. This removed the implicit expectation that DMs will follow the rules as written, or as intended. It also reduced the need for lengthy house rules.

What? (bolded part)



As such, the purpose of Sage Advice changed somewhat. From the WotC website on Sage Advice:


As we can see, the intent of Sage Advice is to offer assistance, not to dictate play. Hence, using Sage Advice to belittle or invalidate another poster's argument or ruling is not only rude, but also goes against the intent of Sage Advice in the first place.

I'd like to ask everyone to please be courteous and not use Sage Advice to attack others. One ruling is no more valid than any other.

Are you asking people to not be rude to each other? I'm pretty sure the forum rules are in place to prevent poor behavior.

Are you saying nobody is allowed to criticize someone's arguments for a ruling they make? Arguments aren't the same as rulings.

A completely inane argument should be refuted even if it leads the DM in question to an agreeable outcome. Also, critiquing bad arguments in-general isn't a critique of the person making it.

[smcmike]

Define "invalid" and give an example of an invalid ruling, if you would.

I was just copying your terminology. "Valid" is not a term I usually use. BurgerBeast gives a very good example of what I meant:


If you want to grapple this opponent you need to make a dexterity check to grab hold, and then an opposed strength roll to maintain the hold.

[MBControl]

I think the take away should be, whatever activity you are doing as entertainment, if there are changes you can make to increase the enjoyment for all involved, than that is the correct choice.

The quickest lesson I learned as a DM is that you have to be flexible, but you need to be consistent. If you can do that and it still creates a fun and challenging game, you're doing it right, no matter how you're doing it.

[krugaan]

Dear Sage Advice,

Was Gandalf a demigod? I need to smack down some people in an internet argument and would really appreciate any ammo you can give me.

PS. He killed a balrog with a toothbrush.

I lol'ed at this one pretty hard.

[Easy_Lee]

I was just copying your terminology. "Valid" is not a term I usually use. BurgerBeast gives a very good example of what I meant:

His example changes a rule. It isn't a ruling on an existing rule.

No one in this thread has actually presented an invalid ruling, just new rules. Those rules aren't really "invalid" either, since a house rule can't really be "invalid."

And that's my point. Some people seem to think that any ruling which isn't a Sage ruling is automatically invalid. My argument is A) all rulings are valid, and B) that people should stop pretending as though Sage rulings are automatically "right."

[R.Shackleford]

His example changes a rule. It isn't a ruling on an existing rule.

No one in this thread has actually presented an invalid ruling, just new rules. Those rules aren't really "invalid" either, since a house rule can't really be "invalid."

Rules that have become invalid? Unarmed strikes.

[Easy_Lee]

Rules that have become invalid? Unarmed strikes.

Hah, nice. In that case, I suppose WotC invalidated their own rule.

[smcmike]

His example changes a rule. It isn't a ruling on an existing rule.

No one in this thread has actually presented an invalid ruling, just new rules. Those rules aren't really "invalid" either, since a house rule can't really be "invalid."

Well, if he presents it as an interpretation of the text (a "ruling"), it is grossly invalid. You are basically just saying that invalid rulings are not rulings at all. That's just a definitional thing.



And that's my point. Some people seem to think that any ruling which isn't a Sage ruling is automatically invalid. My argument is A) all rulings are valid, and B) that people should stop pretending as though Sage rulings are automatically "right."

Ok, fine. But SA is entitled to some weight.

[R.Shackleford]

Hah, nice. In that case, I suppose WotC invalidated their own rule.

More than once really.

Plus you have the ideology of "simple/low fiddly" and look how many different types of attacks there are and how many things call for specific types of specific attacks...

Edit

Bonus Action with Shield Master. The rule with BA is fine but shield master is written without that in mind...

[Tanarii]

And that's my point. Some people seem to think that any ruling which isn't a Sage ruling is automatically invalid. My argument is A) all rulings are valid, and B) that people should stop pretending as though Sage rulings are automatically "right."
They aren't "right". They're just the official interpretation of the rule.

If you choose to ignore to ignore he official interpretation, that's your choice as a DM. But if you choose to argue online that your interpretation of the rule is correct, when a Sage Advice says otherwise, your interpretation is not official. It's personal, and applies only to you. (Edit: well, you and your group / table.) Someone posting an interpretation that matches the official interpretation is talking about the one the developers intend to be the global & default interpretation, as opposed to a personal one.

[mgshamster]

I agree with the premise of this thread (that Sage Advice isn't the end-all-be-all of rules) only for arguments that don't involve RAW/RAI.

If you're invoking RAW/RAI to support your argument, then invoking Sage Advice is also acceptable. In any other case, Sage Advice is just as the name implies: advice.

[RulesJD]

We'll have to define what's a ruling and what's a rule, then. To my thinking, rulings include anything which is either ambiguous and open to interpretation, or has no associated rules. As in, if it requires you to ask Sage Advice, then chances are it's a ruling.

The whole whirlwind equals fly thing would pretty clearly be a rules change, as the text says nothing about that. Whirlwind making one or multiple attacks would be a ruling.

Let me rephrase this to what you're really trying to say:

"If the rule works out how I want it to, then it's clearly unambiguous. But if the ruling doesn't work how I want it to, then it's ambiguous and open to interpretation."

Just be honest about it. You didn't like that your build didn't work by RAW/RAI. The guy who quite literally wrote the rules removed all ambiguity about whether GFB can be Twinned. Ergo, it is not ambiguous anymore.

I personally ignore several of his rulings. However, I'm also upfront that I'm using a houserule when I do so (Multi-attack on enemies doesn't, by RAW, permit multiple Grapple attempts. I ignore that rule).

[Easy_Lee]

Let me rephrase this to what you're really trying to say:

"If the rule works out how I want it to, then it's clearly unambiguous. But if the ruling doesn't work how I want it to, then it's ambiguous and open to interpretation."

Just be honest about it. You didn't like that your build didn't work by RAW/RAI. The guy who quite literally wrote the rules removed all ambiguity about whether GFB can be Twinned. Ergo, it is not ambiguous anymore.

I personally ignore several of his rulings. However, I'm also upfront that I'm using a houserule when I do so (Multi-attack on enemies doesn't, by RAW, permit multiple Grapple attempts. I ignore that rule).

Tell me, JD, are you this insulting to everyone, or only to me?

Crawford doesn't bug me that much, beyond his inconsistencies. You know what does bug me? People who do the following:

CRAWFORD DOESN'T RULE IT THAT WAY THEREFORE YOU'RE WRONG AND YOUR POST IS WRONG AND YOU BETTER BOW DOWN AND APOLOGIZE!

As opposed to just saying, "that requires a ruling which not everyone uses, so ask your DM."

See the difference?

I need a new color to make all of my posts in. A color which indicates that I don't care what Crawford thinks, and if you respond to one of my posts with, "you're wrong because Crawford," then I'm going to ignore you.

[mgshamster]

Tell me, JD, are you this insulting to everyone, or only to me?

To everyone. He's not discriminatory to just you. :)

[Tanarii]

Tell me, JD, are you this insulting to everyone, or only to me?Everyone. Some posters you just learn to accept they're abrasive and aggressive in pursuing their point of view. Or you end up putting them on ignore.

OTOH he's not the only one. I've seen you dish it out many times. And to be fair, I've dished it out myself many times, sometimes in a fit of pique, other times totally unintentionally. I don't have anyone on ignore, because I'm often an asshat myself, and that'd be hypocritical of me.

[smcmike]

OTOH he's not the only one. I've seen you dish it out many times. And to be fair, I've dished it out myself many times, sometimes in a fit of pique, other times totally unintentionally. I don't have anyone on ignore, because I'm often an asshat myself, and that'd be hypocritical of me.

This is my position. Besides which, if I didn't want to get into arguments, I could do that.

Lee, I can see why that stance would grate on you. On the other hand, discounting Sage Advice completely because some people use it rudely seems a bit much.

[krugaan]

Everyone. Some posters you just learn to accept they're abrasive and aggressive in pursuing their point of view. Or you end up putting them on ignore.

OTOH he's not the only one. I've seen you dish it out many times. And to be fair, I've dished it out myself many times, sometimes in a fit of pique, other times totally unintentionally. I don't have anyone on ignore, because I'm often an asshat myself, and that'd be hypocritical of me.

That's remarkably big of you. I think virtually everyone does it, but there are a few who seem oblivious to the fact.

It's very easy to forget that there are people behind the abstraction of the forums.

There are very few "right" answers. In fact, I'll put forth that there are none (as pertains to DnD 5E).

edit: this thread got civil real quick, what's the matter with you all?!?!

I retract my earlier statements, someone say something polarizing and myopic.

[Tanarii]

edit: this thread got civil real quick, what's the matter with you all?!?!

I retract my earlier statements, someone say something polarizing and myopic.Clearly you're (edit: ALL of you!) always wrong and I'm always right, and that makes you Bad Players, Bad DMs, and all-around Bad People! If I met you in real life, I'd flip the game-table, walk away, and set fire to the house just for good measure! :smallamused:

[DivisibleByZero]

His example changes a rule. It isn't a ruling on an existing rule.

No one in this thread has actually presented an invalid ruling, just new rules. Those rules aren't really "invalid" either, since a house rule can't really be "invalid."

And that's my point. Some people seem to think that any ruling which isn't a Sage ruling is automatically invalid. My argument is A) all rulings are valid, and B) that people should stop pretending as though Sage rulings are automatically "right."

This is hilariously hypocritical.
You argue against the rulings of others at every possibly oppportunity, telling us what is the "right" way to interpret something.... and then you post this thread and this post?

[krugaan]

This is hilariously hypocritical.
You argue against the rulings of others at every possibly oppportunity, telling us what is the "right" way to interpret something.... and then you post this thread and this post?

Yes .... yes ... let the hate flow through you.

STRIKE HIM DOWN WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT AND YOUR PATH TO THE DARK SIDE SHALL BE COMPLETE.

[RulesJD]

Everyone. Some posters you just learn to accept they're abrasive and aggressive in pursuing their point of view. Or you end up putting them on ignore.

OTOH he's not the only one. I've seen you dish it out many times. And to be fair, I've dished it out myself many times, sometimes in a fit of pique, other times totally unintentionally. I don't have anyone on ignore, because I'm often an asshat myself, and that'd be hypocritical of me.

^^^ What he said.

[Easy_Lee]

Yes .... yes ... let the hate flow through you.

STRIKE HIM DOWN WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT AND YOUR PATH TO THE DARK SIDE SHALL BE COMPLETE.

Now I need an Emperor Palpatine avatar.

[JakOfAllTirades]

Let me rephrase this to what you're really trying to say:

"If the rule works out how I want it to, then it's clearly unambiguous. But if the ruling doesn't work how I want it to, then it's ambiguous and open to interpretation."

Just be honest about it. You didn't like that your build didn't work by RAW/RAI. The guy who quite literally wrote the rules removed all ambiguity about whether GFB can be Twinned. Ergo, it is not ambiguous anymore.

I personally ignore several of his rulings. However, I'm also upfront that I'm using a houserule when I do so (Multi-attack on enemies doesn't, by RAW, permit multiple Grapple attempts. I ignore that rule).

Wait, someone thought GFB could be Twinned? It must have missed an epic debate. One for the ages! And I could've made popcorn, too!

ZOMG, why??? I mean... literally everyone knows you can't Twin a spell that targets multiple creatures!

Seriously, did we need to go up the mountain and bother the Powers That Be with something that obvious?

That's what this is all about? It's right there. In the book. Oh forget it.

I. Can't. Even....

[/tirade]


Gonna teach my cat to play D&D. He can roll dice already....

[R.Shackleford]

Now I need an Emperor Palpatine avatar.

Technically a Vader or Luke one

[Easy_Lee]

Technically a Vader or Luke one

Oh come on, I wanna be Sheev.

[Sabeta]

As others have stated already, when debating Rules you should reference official sources whenever possible. If it isn't outright RAW it will at least be RAI that way, and for the purpose of debate Official RAI>Unofficial RAI.

That being said I don't think anyone on this forum would care terribly much if you simply acknowledge the official rules but say you prefer to play differently. Just don't going around trying to preach your RAI over the official one.

[RickAllison]

As others have stated already, when debating Rules you should reference official sources whenever possible. If it isn't outright RAW it will at least be RAI that way, and for the purpose of debate Official RAI>Unofficial RAI.

That being said I don't think anyone on this forum would care terribly much if you simply acknowledge the official rules but say you prefer to play differently. Just don't going around trying to preach your RAI over the official one.

Indeed. The authority of the rules is generally RAW (including errata)>RAI from Crawford (the official interpretation of the RAW)>unofficial RAI (everyone else). When discussing a rule based on the merit of the rules, anything a DM comes up with is just as valid as what WotC points out. RAW and Sage Advice only matter when the discussion is about what the rules actually are.

A DM can modify the rules to create a glorious system far surpassing that of the RAW. All may bow down and glorify it, extolling its virtues (hyperbole), but those modifications have no bearing on whether they are the rules of the 5e system.

[Easy_Lee]

As others have stated already, when debating Rules you should reference official sources whenever possible. If it isn't outright RAW it will at least be RAI that way, and for the purpose of debate Official RAI>Unofficial RAI.

That being said I don't think anyone on this forum would care terribly much if you simply acknowledge the official rules but say you prefer to play differently. Just don't going around trying to preach your RAI over the official one.

If you take a look at the rest of the Sage Advice article I referenced, it goes on to state a few things. For one, it reinforces the notion that they aren't dictating how DMs should rule. For two, Crawford states that he comes at ruling questions with three things in mind, not two: RAI, RAW, and RAF.

RAF stands for rules as fun. Here's the quote:

RAF. Regardless of what’s on the page or what the designers intended, D&D is meant to be fun, and the DM is the ringmaster at each game table. The best DMs shape the game on the fly to bring the most delight to his or her players. Such DMs aim for RAF, “rules as fun.”

We expect DMs to depart from the rules when running a particular campaign or when seeking the greatest happiness for a certain group of players. Sometimes my rules answers will include advice on achieving the RAF interpretation of a rule for your group.

I recommend a healthy mix of RAW, RAI, and RAF!
The playground often seems to forget about this last one. I'm sorry that my stretching the rules gets in the way of your fun. But that's not going to make me stop doing anything.

[BiPolar]

If you take a look at the rest of the Sage Advice article I referenced, it goes on to state a few things. For one, it reinforces the notion that they aren't dictating how DMs should rule. For two, Crawford states that he comes at ruling questions with three things in mind, not two: RAI, RAW, and RAF.

RAF stands for rules as fun. Here's the quote:

The playground often seems to forget about this last one. I'm sorry that my stretching the rules gets in the way of your fun. But that's not going to make me stop doing anything.

I'm fairly certain no one is saying you can't do it. We're just saying that if you are stretching the rules for fun, you need to be clear and honest that's what you're doing so that any further interactions take that into account.

[RickAllison]

I'm fairly certain no one is saying you can't do it. We're just saying that if you are stretching the rules for fun, you need to be clear and honest that's what you're doing so that any further interactions take that into account.

Some RAF I use:

Snilloc's Snowball Swarm allows for a fun play-fight for kids.
Things like grappling hooks can be used as attacks rather than an ad-hoc action.
Repeating hand crossbows can be made using the modifications from OotA.

I don't claim these things are the rules by any means (the repeating hand crossbows have precedent from the Derro, but that is my house-rule), but presenting them as my RAF rather than RAW or RAI means they can only be argued against based on how they contribute to the game rather than how they mesh with the existing rules.

[Easy_Lee]

Some RAF I use:

Snilloc's Snowball Swarm allows for a fun play-fight for kids.
Things like grappling hooks can be used as attacks rather than an ad-hoc action.
Repeating hand crossbows can be made using the modifications from OotA.

I don't claim these things are the rules by any means (the repeating hand crossbows have precedent from the Derro, but that is my house-rule), but presenting them as my RAF rather than RAW or RAI means they can only be argued against based on how they contribute to the game rather than how they mesh with the existing rules.

Nobody should be bullied into silencing or qualifying their posts, just to please someone else's sensibilities. If a poster finds himself responding to a thread with "that doesn't work because X," perhaps that poster should consider that every DM is different, and has different rulings.

My RAF gets in the way of your RAW or RAI interpretation? Maybe I should ask you to qualify your post with, "but ask your DM."

[SharkForce]

i dunno, if you're posting a build on a public forum with the presumed intention that others will look at it, critique it, and maybe even use it, it only makes sense to include a disclaimer that your build does not, in fact, follow the official rules, because that's important information. especially if someone wants to show up to an AL game with the build you're claiming is so awesome, failing to include that information is going to have a significant impact on how useful your build is.

i mean, yeah, for your home games, rule whatever you want. i don't care. it's your game, not mine. but if you're in a community where there is only one reasonable assumption for a shared ruleset (in this case, the official rules), you should always specify when you're not using that ruleset, and it isn't unreasonable for others to bring up that ruleset in a discussion with you. and it's certainly silly to suggest that your personal set of home rules that only apply to your game and have zero weight anywhere else should have equal weight across the entire community of people, the vast majority of which do not happen to be in your gaming group. so... actually, yes, sage advice does carry more weight in an online community of people that have only one commonly available ruleset to use. in your home games, it doesn't. but this isn't your home game, and you aren't our DM. in the setting of these forums, your rulings (and my rulings, and so on) have less weight than the official rules.

(and on a side note, i find that it helps me to get rude less often if i place people on ignore that i find myself repeatedly having a difficult time having a polite discussion with. whatever the reason, something about the people on my ignore list tends to set me off, and the simplest way to avoid getting into nasty arguments with them is if i cannot in fact see what they've said).

[LaserFace]

Am I missing some context for this discussion? Are people being bullied about their opinions, and how they make rulings that flex rules as written, or even break them when it makes for an enjoyable game experience?

[Easy_Lee]

i dunno, if you're posting a build on a public forum with the presumed intention that others will look at it, critique it, and maybe even use it, it only makes sense to include a disclaimer that your build does not, in fact, follow the official rules, because that's important information. especially if someone wants to show up to an AL game with the build you're claiming is so awesome, failing to include that information is going to have a significant impact on how useful your build is.

i mean, yeah, for your home games, rule whatever you want. i don't care. it's your game, not mine. but if you're in a community where there is only one reasonable assumption for a shared ruleset (in this case, the official rules), you should always specify when you're not using that ruleset, and it isn't unreasonable for others to bring up that ruleset in a discussion with you. and it's certainly silly to suggest that your personal set of home rules that only apply to your game and have zero weight anywhere else should have equal weight across the entire community of people, the vast majority of which do not happen to be in your gaming group. so... actually, yes, sage advice does carry more weight in an online community of people that have only one commonly available ruleset to use. in your home games, it doesn't. but this isn't your home game, and you aren't our DM. in the setting of these forums, your rulings (and my rulings, and so on) have less weight than the official rules.

(and on a side note, i find that it helps me to get rude less often if i place people on ignore that i find myself repeatedly having a difficult time having a polite discussion with. whatever the reason, something about the people on my ignore list tends to set me off, and the simplest way to avoid getting into nasty arguments with them is if i cannot in fact see what they've said).

You made an assumption in this post that anything which disagrees with Sage Advice is a house rule. That's invalid for two reasons.

Fact: Sage Advice makes rulings, not rules. A ruling which disagrees with Sage Advice is not a "house rule," because it wasn't a rule in the first place.
Fact: Sage Advice is intended as advice, not as a column to dictate rules. Read here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/philosophy-behind-rules-and-rulings).

Sage Advice is not intended to dictate rulings to anyone. Hence, all rulings are valid at the table. There is not assumption that the same rulings will be used everywhere, not even AL. And that's been the biggest source of complaint from people, myself included, about AL.

Furthermore, many of the rulings posted on Sage Advice clarify intent, such as with whirlwind attack. However, you'll notice most of them never become errata, in spite of the confusion. This is because Sage Advice, once again, is not intended to dictate riles.

[Tanarii]

My RAF gets in the way of your RAW or RAI interpretation? Maybe I should ask you to qualify your post with, "but ask your DM."
If you are trying to claim that the rules work a certain way, in a public forum, then it's on you to qualify if you are using a variation from the RAW or official RAI. Because otherwise, others will assume you are using the commonly shared rulesets, the RAW or RAI.

Because RAF is individual. RAW and RAI are shared and public. (Edit: In other words, people have no idea if you're making an intentional & individual variation from RAW or RAI unless you state that's what you're doing.)

Edit2: Also, the term "house-rule" is common shorthand for "neither RAW or official RAI". There's no official definition of it of course, but that's usually what people mean when they say it. Obviously, other people use it just to mean "not RAW". It's a common debate if SA is part or not part of what defines "house-rule" because it isn't defined.

[Grod_The_Giant]

It's always worth noting that you're using contentious rulings, regardless of whether they're contentious because of unusual RAW readings, because of contradictory Sage Advice/developer comments, or just because they contradict common practice (say, a Warlock/Paladin). It's common courtesy to say "you'll want to check with your GM about this" if you're presenting such an option.

[Easy_Lee]

If you are trying to claim that the rules work a certain way, in a public forum, then it's on you to qualify if you are using a variation from the RAW or official RAI. Because otherwise, others will assume you are using the commonly shared rulesets, the RAW or RAI.

Because RAF is individual. RAW and RAI are shared and public. (Edit: In other words, people have no idea if you're making an intentional & individual variation from RAW or RAI unless you state that's what you're doing.)

Edit2: Also, the term "house-rule" is common shorthand for "neither RAW or official RAI". There's no official definition of it of course, but that's usually what people mean when they say it, in which case yeah it includes SA. Other times they mean "not RAW" in which case SA isn't part of it.

If RAI, as in Sage Advice, was meant to be generally followed, then it would be enforced on AL DMs. The community as a whole is under no obligation to follow RAI. Nor have they have been. Nor has Sage Advice ever even suggested it.

As I said, some people follow RAI, and use it as a weapon to attack anyone who doesn't. However, RAI holds no weight with anyone except those who follow it. And the only people who assume it's meant to be followed are, once again, those who follow it.

I'm questioning your assumption that RAI matters to the community as a whole. Many of us, especially those with video gaming backgrounds, don't much care what was intended. For us, much of the fun of the game comes from finding clever ways to combine features, intended or not. Are you telling me I'm wrong to do that? Or perhaps you're trying to bully me into qualifying all of my posts with a statement which, in your mind, makes my post interior.

If you disagree, you have my permission to rule otherwise. But I'm not qualifying any if my posts with anything, regardless of how you or anyone else feels about it.

[NNescio]

If RAI, as in Sage Advice, was meant to be generally followed, then it would be enforced on AL DMs. The community as a whole is under no obligation to follow RAI. Nor have they have been. Nor has Sage Advice ever even suggested it.

As I said, some people follow RAI, and use it as a weapon to attack anyone who doesn't. However, RAI holds no weight with anyone except those who follow it. And the only people who assume it's meant to be followed are, once again, those who follow it.

I'm questioning your assumption that RAI matters to the community as a whole. Many of us, especially those with video gaming backgrounds, don't much care what was intended. For us, much of the fun of the game comes from finding clever ways to combine features, intended or not. Are you telling me I'm wrong to do that? Or perhaps you're trying to bully me into qualifying all of my posts with a statement which, in your mind, makes my post interior.

If you disagree, you have my permission to rule otherwise. But I'm not qualifying any if my posts with anything, regardless of how you or anyone else feels about it.

To add to this, Sage Advice can be confusing sometimes, as you they sometimes conflict with each other. This is easy to resolve in the case of Mearls vs. Crawford (Mearls is not very... cognizant of the game rules), but you sometimes have Crawford 'contradicting' himself when he makes separate RAW and RAI rulings (like in the case of Disintegrate vs. Wildshape).

And let's not forget that debacle with the Devil's Sight invocation, where Crawford employed a tortuous RAW definition of darkness to arrive at the conclusion that Warlocks can see better in complete darkness than in dim light (where they don't benefit from Devil's Sight at all).

('though generally speaking Crawford's rulings are sound, in my opinion.)

[smcmike]

If you disagree, you have my permission to rule otherwise. But I'm not qualifying any if my posts with anything, regardless of how you or anyone else feels about it.

I mean, that's fine, but when someone pops up and says "you know, that contradicts Sage Advice, and also RAW, by my reading," don't get too huffy about it.

[Tanarii]

I'm questioning your assumption that RAI matters to the community as a whole.:smallconfused: It clearly does matter to the D& community as a whole, because it's regularly referred to by folks in our community, and we keep asking them questions in hope of answers.

That said, yes, I agree Sage Advice is usually contentious. Especially by those that disagree with a ruling.

I personally find it valuable in 5e because:
1) it's direct from the developers for once
2) they are making an effort not to just make it up on the spot for once

It's nice to have some devs willing to share their thoughts directly, and without making crap up on the fly that busts everything all over the place. Mearls still does that via Twitter, but he makes it clear that's what he's doing, and the SA document tells you that it's the only official source for exactly that reason. Even JC tweets aren't official, and he makes an effort on them.

So unlike in past editions, where I led the charge, with a battlecry of "screw Skip Williams and his unofficial house-rules that crap ain't the REAL rules!", I accept that in this edition, they're actually telling us how the rules were intended to be interpreted when they wrote them. If I don't like that, I can run it differently, but I don't try and come on the boards and insist my interpretation is more official than what they've TOLD us is the official & intended interpretation.

[RickAllison]

To add to this, Sage Advice can be confusing sometimes, as you they sometimes conflict with each other. This is easy to resolve in the case of Mearls vs. Crawford (Mearls is not very... cognizant of the game rules), but you sometimes have Crawford 'contradicting' himself when he makes separate RAW and RAI rulings (like in the case of Disintegrate vs. Wildshape).

And let's not forget that debacle with the Devil's Sight invocation, where Crawford employed a tortuous RAW definition of darkness to arrive at the conclusion that Warlocks can see better in complete darkness than in dim light (where they don't benefit from Devil's Sight at all).

('though generally speaking Crawford's rulings are sound, in my opinion.)

In the case of Disintegrate v. Wild Shape, it wasn't a contradiction but a rescindment. It wasn't saying that there are now two RAIs, it is saying that the first one was a misreading of the rules (proof that he is fallible, of course) and so the alternate definition is the valid one.

[Easy_Lee]

:smallconfused: It clearly does matter to the D& community as a whole, because it's regularly referred to by folks in our community, and we keep asking them questions in hope of answers.

That only enforces my point. It isn't regularly referenced by everyone in the community. It's regularly referenced by some people in the community. And those people seem to feel justified in trying to push everyone else around. Some of us respond in kind. And those same RAI fanatics bash us for not agreeing to their demands of qualifying every post we make with, "I'm a dirty houseruler and I'm sorry."

[R.Shackleford]

Oh come on, I wanna be Sheev.

Well, too bad. If you have to be coaxed to the dark side you either get to be a whiney dude who becomes awesome or a whiney dude who becomes awesome.

:smallbiggrin:

[RickAllison]

That only enforces my point. It isn't regularly referenced by everyone in the community. It's regularly referenced by some people in the community. And those people seem to feel justified in trying to push everyone else around. Some of us respond in kind. And those same RAI fanatics bash us for not agreeing to their demands of qualifying every post we make with, "I'm a dirty houseruler and I'm sorry."

Barring a few bad apples, that only seems to happen within a discussion of the rules. When you create a character build that relies on a house-rule, it should be called out on such because the house-rule must be approved by a given DM before it can be used. It is about establishing a frame of reference. If I told a stranger walking down the street, "The elephant always trumpets at midnight," they are likely to be confused. I may have an owl-phant who blasts his trunk precisely at midnight, but this guy doesn't know that. I could change it to "My elephant always trumpets at midnight," "There is an elephant that always trumpets at midnight," or "The elephant at the zoo always trumpets at midnight," and the stranger would at least have a frame of reference for my apparent obsession with nocturnal pachyderms.

The same thing applies in these discussions. The only communal frame of reference we have is the RAW and the Sage Advice RAI. I don't know your table's rules, you don't know mine, and neither of us knows what goes on at Gastronomie's table. Thus to discuss the RAI and house-rules we must establish the frame of reference. "At my table," "The way I read it," "What makes sense to me," are all examples of a poster establishing to readers that those are his/her/possessive pronoun of choice variation, which can then be discussed independently from things like Sage Advice.

[Grod_The_Giant]

And those same RAI fanatics bash us for not agreeing to their demands of qualifying every post we make with, "I'm a dirty houseruler and I'm sorry."
Dude, hyperbole much? If you make assumptions in a build, in an answer to someone's question, or anything else where you're speaking as an authority, you should say so. That goes equally for "this would be a reasonable ruling," for "as stated in the Sage Advice," and for "the Sage Advice says otherwise, but."

Edit: the point isn't to credit or discredit YOU, it's for the benefit of the person idly reading who doesn't know or care about all this RAW stuff, so that they don't show up to a game only to be told that <thing> doesn't work the way they thought it did because <other interpretation>

[Easy_Lee]

Barring a few bad apples, that only seems to happen within a discussion of the rules. When you create a character build that relies on a house-rule, it should be called out on such because the house-rule must be approved by a given DM before it can be used. It is about establishing a frame of reference.

That frame of reference is not RAI. It's RAW. Everyone follows the text, for the most part. A house rule is something that adds to or changes RAW. That's different from RAI, where we have to take intent into consideration, and thus must consult Google.

And consulting Google is a good way to slow down your game, by the way.

I repeat, no one is under any obligation to follow RAI, or to qualify their posts with "I don't follow RAI." Some people care about Sage Advice. But many of us don't care.

Bringing up Sage Advice to someone who doesn't care is a waste of time. It's wrong to assume that people care. It's wrong to assume that RAI is a meaningful frame of reference. Not even AL DMs consistently follow RAI. And if they don't, then we can't assume that anyone else does, either.

So how about I ask YOU to qualify YOUR posts with, "but disregard this if you don't follow RAI." Obviously, that would be an unreasonable request. So I don't know why you think it's reasonable to make the same demand of me.

[R.Shackleford]

That frame of reference is not RAI. It's RAW. Everyone follows the text, for the most part. A house rule is something that adds to or changes RAW. That's different from RAI, where we have to take intent into consideration, and thus must consult Google.

And consulting Google is a good way to slow down your game, by the way.

I repeat, no one is under any obligation to follow RAI, or to qualify their posts with "I don't follow RAI." Some people care about Sage Advice. But many of us don't care.

Bringing up Sage Advice to someone who doesn't care is a waste of time. It's wrong to assume that people care. It's wrong to assume that RAI is a meaningful frame of reference. Not even AL DMs consistently follow RAI. And if they don't, then we can't assume that anyone else does, either.

So how about I ask YOU to qualify YOUR posts with, "but disregard this if you don't follow RAI." Obviously, that would be an unreasonable request. So I don't know why you think it's reasonable to make the same demand of me.

For now on I'm just going to give people answers to rule questions based on Rule of Cool.

And I'm not even going to tell people...:smallyuk:

[smcmike]

Bringing up Sage Advice to someone who doesn't care is a waste of time. It's wrong to assume that people care. It's wrong to assume that RAI is a meaningful frame of reference. Not even AL DMs consistently follow RAI. And if they don't, then we can't assume that anyone else does, either.


You are not the only audience. I find posts explaining how Sage Advice interacts with proposed builds very helpful, personally.

[Easy_Lee]

You are not the only audience. I find posts explaining how Sage Advice interacts with proposed builds very helpful, personally.

Neither are RAI followers the only audience. Too often, though, posters use RAI to attack everyone, assuming we're supposed to care.

I'm not asking people not to post Sage Advice. I'm explaining that many of us don't care, and that it's unreasonable to assume that we either do or should.


For now on I'm just going to give people answers to rule questions based on Rule of Cool.

And I'm not even going to tell people...:smallyuk:

That sounds like fun, to me. I'd much rather read this sort of post than another Sage Advice quote.

[BiPolar]

This thread is about being decent, or as bill & ted say, excellent to each other.

Easy_lee: I understand where you're coming from, but it seems like you're being obstinate for the sake of being obstinate. Yes, there are rules and there are rulings. But I think we all generally know (or learn very quickly) when we are intepreting a ruling differently than the majority. i truly don't understand what the issue is to clarify that so you can have a discussion with others that doesn't get toxic.

And again, I haven't seen anyone beat anyone else over the head with SA. People have referenced it to support their viewpoint, but no one, and especially no one in the GFB thread was using it as a blunt instrument.

The issue here is common courtesy. Understanding that when you are doing something that MAY seem out of bounds to just let everyone know. You can absolutely choose not to do that, but than you also can't really complain when the thread devolves into questioning it's basis because the alternate basis isn't made clear early.

[RickAllison]

That frame of reference is not RAI. It's RAW. Everyone follows the text, for the most part. A house rule is something that adds to or changes RAW. That's different from RAI, where we have to take intent into consideration, and thus must consult Google.

Sage Advice is a universal frame of reference for the community because it is accessible to everyone. Everyone (at least with Internet, but otherwise they probably aren't worried about what we discuss here anyway) can access those official rulings, but that can't be done with every single DM in the world. Whenever a rule is brought into question, it is, over all of the community, the most reliable answer. Some tables will choose not to use the RAI, which is fine and dandy, but that doesn't change it being a universal frame of reference.


And consulting Google is a good way to slow down your game, by the way.

No, but it is a great way to get opinions and official advice on how to rule situations you faced in a given day for future reference!


I repeat, no one is under any obligation to follow RAI, or to qualify their posts with "I don't follow RAI." Some people care about Sage Advice. But many of us don't care.

No one said they were under an obligation to do so. They can do whatever they like. But any house-rules should get pointed out for those who are less knowledgeable about the rules so they don't mistakenly assume things like that Whirlwind Strike is multiple attacks, or that GFB can be twinned at any table. Just because some do not care about the official rulings does not mean that those seeking to learn more so they don't violate the most universally applicable rulings should be punished.

No one really cares if you in particular feel offended by the idea of Sage Advice being more applicable than your rulings. They care about the community and making sure all are taken care of.


Bringing up Sage Advice to someone who doesn't care is a waste of time. It's wrong to assume that people care. It's wrong to assume that RAI is a meaningful frame of reference. Not even AL DMs consistently follow RAI. And if they don't, then we can't assume that anyone else does, either.

Bringing up Sage Advice is far from a wasted time because it informs DMs who would like the developer's input and players who would like to know the most universally useful ruling. It is wrong to assume that posters attach as little importance to the creators of the game as you do.


So how about I ask YOU to qualify YOUR posts with, "but disregard this if you don't follow RAI." Obviously, that would be an unreasonable request. So I don't know why you think it's reasonable to make the same demand of me.

Because the RAI is the default assumption unless a DM chooses to rule otherwise. If a DM doesn't have a particular bias toward one interpretation or another and doesn't think either will significantly improve quality of the game more than another, Sage Advice is the default option. Otherwise, they are stuck reading pages of debate like this across numerous websites that still leave them without a clear answer.

[Easy_Lee]

Sage Advice is a universal frame of reference

I'm going to say this one last time, and then you and I are going to cease arguing about it. We're going to cease arguing about it because I'm not going to reply if you try to keep this up.

You say, "Sage Advice is a universal frame of reference for the community." No, it's not. A large portion of the community does not care about Sage Advice, and does not use it.

Don't make me get my dictionary and define "universal" for you. There is only one universal frame of reference, and that's the PHB, which we all own. Even that is questionable, since errata exists, and we don't all own the same text. But that doesn't change the fact that it's the only thing we can honestly call a "universal" frame of reference.

Sage Advice is not universal, because not everyone uses it. And that's never going to change.

[RickAllison]

I'm going to say this one last time, and then you and I are going to cease arguing about it. We're going to cease arguing about it because I'm not going to reply if you try to keep this up.

You say, "Sage Advice is a universal frame of reference for the community." No, it's not. A large portion of the community does not care about Sage Advice, and does not use it.

Don't make me get my dictionary and define "universal" for you. There is only one universal frame of reference, and that's the PHB, which we all own. Even that is questionable, since errata exists, and we don't all own the same text. But that doesn't change the fact that it's the only thing we can honestly call a "universal" frame of reference.

Sage Advice is not universal, because not everyone uses it. And that's never going to change.

Fine, general or default. When no other frame of reference is stated, it is the frame of reference because there exists no other that can be.

[Xetheral]

i dunno, if you're posting a build on a public forum with the presumed intention that others will look at it, critique it, and maybe even use it, it only makes sense to include a disclaimer that your build does not, in fact, follow the official rules, because that's important information. especially if someone wants to show up to an AL game with the build you're claiming is so awesome, failing to include that information is going to have a significant impact on how useful your build is.

Interestingly enough, Sage Advice is not official at AL tables. Only the Player's Guide and the Adventurer's League FAQ are official souces there. That being said, since AL DMs may elect to follow Sage Advice (so long as it doesn't contradict the official sources) you're right that it's useful to AL players to know when their build contradicts Sage Advice, since such a build is less likely to be universally permitted.

[RulesJD]

*snip*

If you disagree, you have my permission to rule otherwise. But I'm not qualifying any if my posts with anything, regardless of how you or anyone else feels about it.

It's okay, we'll do it for you. That's the happy benefit of public forums.

[R.Shackleford]

Neither are RAI followers the only audience. Too often, though, posters use RAI to attack everyone, assuming we're supposed to care.

I'm not asking people not to post Sage Advice. I'm explaining that many of us don't care, and that it's unreasonable to assume that we either do or should.



That sounds like fun, to me. I'd much rather read this sort of post than another Sage Advice quote.

I've been thinking about answering the Sage Advice questions via Rule of Cool.

Or starting a Rule of Cool answering page.

[RickAllison]

I've been thinking about answering the Sage Advice questions via Rule of Cool.

Or starting a Rule of Cool answering page.

Sounds like a great idea! I think a lot of the sticklers who argue RAW and RAI in these forums and others are far less stringent when it comes to actually playing the game. At least I hope so.

[2D8HP]

D&D 5e encourages DMs to make Rulings, Not Rules. But what does that mean?

The core idea is simple: 5e is rules-light compared with previous editions, and the DM is encouraged to make rulings as he or she deems appropriate.
OK, I admit my eyes glazed over in reading arguments of I'm not sure what in this thread, and I skipped a lot of posts, so maybe someone has addressed this but "rules light compared with previous editions"??!!!??
The 1977 "blue book" rules from the Basic Set was 48 pages, the small-print 1978 PHB was 128 pages, as was the large-print 1994 The Classic Dungeons and Dragons Rules and Adventures Book. The 5e PHB is over 316 freakin' pages.

5e Light?

What monstrosity of an edition is heavy than?

[smcmike]

OK, I admit my eyes glazed over in reading arguments of I'm not sure what in this thread, and I skipped a lot of posts, so maybe someone has addressed this but "rules light compared with previous editions"??!!!??
The 1977 "blue book" rules from the Basic Set was 48 pages, the small-print 1978 PHB was 128 pages, as was the large-print 1994 The Classic Dungeons and Dragons Rules and Adventures Book. The 5e PHB is over 316 freakin' pages.

5e Light?

What monstrosity of an edition is heavy than?

Hahahahahahahaha. You really never looked at 3.5, did you?

[Easy_Lee]

Hahahahahahahaha. You really never looked at 3.5, did you?

To be fair, I should have qualified my post by saying 5e is rules-light compared to some previous editions. My preference would be for the core rules book to be less than 100 pages, and make judicious use of specific, defined, consistent terminology.

[RickAllison]

To be fair, I should have qualified my post by saying 5e is rules-light compared to some previous editions. My preference would be for the core rules book to be less than 100 pages, and make judicious use of specific, defined, consistent terminology.

I'm sure that if I could take out pictures, reduce the font size, and increase the page size, then I can fit the 5e PHB in one hundred pages :smallbiggrin:

[Plaguescarred]

Sage Advice is official rulings so it's normal it's brought up in rules question on the internet, here or on other online forums. How you rule something at your table is up to you as a DM of course. But when WoTC addressed a question on it's column or that Jeremy Crawford did on his twitter, you can expect it to show up in a thread discussing said subject, because these sources represent D&D R&D.

[DeAnno]

To me, making an entire thread to belittle, mock, and bash a prominent style of thinking seems more like bullying than any amount of debate over rules in specific threads. Personally, I despise "Rulings, not Rules" as a game concept, probably just as much as you're annoyed by the "Hierarchy of RAW/Sage/Twitter" legalistic interpretation. Do you see me making an entire thread to argue that "Rulings, not Rules" is an inane defense on an internet forum where there can be no DM with authority, and therefore there can't really be a global DM judgment call?

Increasingly as I've browsed this forum I see "Rulings, not Rules" popping up everywhere and used as a tool to stifle not only legal argument but to ignore dissenting opinion. This just seems to be a thread focused on legitimizing such attacks on people and trying to force legal argument to be a corner case while "Rulings, not Rules" is held up as some sort of sacred cow assumed to be the general standard.

[Plaguescarred]

I must says its the only forum where i hang where i see some of it's participants having such position against Jeremy Crawford and the Sage Advice.

[James warden]

Got wonderful information from this thread

[2D8HP]

Hahahahahahahaha. You really never looked at 3.5, did you?
3.5 is even worse?!
Anyone who tried Chivalry & Sorcery, or Rolemaster could tell you that adding even more rules is a mistake.
Oh by Crom no.
Just no!

[RickAllison]

I must says its the only forum where i hang where i see some of it's participants having such position against Jeremy Crawford and the Sage Advice.

I've seen it on ENWorld and 4chan a bunch. Surprisingly civil on the latter, everyone has the understanding that it is the official ruling and that any personal rulings that differ are just addressed as such with no fanfare or consternation.

"I prefer to rule it as..." as opposed to "You are belittling and invalidating me by citing the official RAI!" Not what you expect from an anonymous site usually known for how vulgar it is...

[Tanarii]

That only enforces my point. It isn't regularly referenced by everyone in the community. It's regularly referenced by some people in the community. And those people seem to feel justified in trying to push everyone else around. Some of us respond in kind. And those same RAI fanatics bash us for not agreeing to their demands of qualifying every post we make with, "I'm a dirty houseruler and I'm sorry."In discussions about what the rules are, I see it regular referenced throughout the community. Of course the community doesn't speak with one voice. But a large part of the community is interested.

I'm sorry you've felt "pushed around". There's nothing dirty about being a house-ruler in D&D. It's a long and proud tradition.

But the fact of the matter is, if you're having a RAW debate, and there's a debate about how the rule should be interpreted, SA gives you the official company intent for interpreting that rule. That's in no way to say that you should rule the same way in your games. Hell, in 5e that doesn't even mean public play (AL) has to rule that way. So there's really no right or wrong. There's what the words are free of any interpretation as to how to read them or their intent for using (RAW), and there is official RAI for how they intended them to be interpreted. And between those two, each and every DM and player is free to rule how they want at those table.

The problem here isn't arguments about what's RAW and what's RAI. It's that the arguments are about how to interpret RAW in a 'right' way or 'wrong' way, and if the official RAI is somehow 'right' or 'wrong'. And everything from that point down is purely person opinion and disagreement.

Extremely entertaining debate. I love it. I'll totally get on my high horse and be like, naw, you guys are ALL wrong and MY interpretation is the correct one, so eat it ya losers. I won an internet debate!

But the reality is none of that matters. What matters is knowing RAW (ie the exact words of the rules, nothing to do with interpretation or reading or sentence structure, just the quote), and if provided official RAI. After that it's up to us to make up our own minds how to use that. If we want to debate them and decide whose interpretation is 'right' for internet points, we're perfectly welcome to ignore official RAI, hold it up as a holy bible to be followed at all costs, be polite or rude (within forum guidelines), or whatever else we like. There's no 'rules' because what we're doing is beside the point.

[mgshamster]

I've seen it on ENWorld and 4chan a bunch. Surprisingly civil on the latter, everyone has the understanding that it is the official ruling and that any personal rulings that differ are just addressed as such with no fanfare or consternation.

"I prefer to rule it as..." as opposed to "You are belittling and invalidating me by citing the official RAI!" Not what you expect from an anonymous site usually known for how vulgar it is...

That's how it is over on Paizo, too. "This is the official version, here's how I run it."

Or, "Here's a build I've presented. Note that this part is contested on the forums, so ask your GM before play."

It's really just here, and from an extreme minority of people that I've seen the opposite.

[R.Shackleford]

Sounds like a great idea! I think a lot of the sticklers who argue RAW and RAI in these forums and others are far less stringent when it comes to actually playing the game. At least I hope so.

I'm sure we would get the same arguments just based on what is cool and what isn't.

I'm going to elect myself as GPfL (Glorious President for Life) of the Rule of Cool :smallcool: (see, I have shades so I win the election). Then people can try to argue but I'll overrule them.


I must says its the only forum where i hang where i see some of it's participants having such position against Jeremy Crawford and the Sage Advice.

My beef is more with Mike Mearls than anyone else, everything D&D that dude touches has so much potential but goes very weird. Almost like the rest of the team has to keep him from going to far into left field. /shrug

[RickAllison]

In discussions about what the rules are, I see it regular referenced throughout the community. Of course the community doesn't speak with one voice. But a large part of the community is interested.

I'm sorry you've felt "pushed around". There's nothing dirty about being a house-ruler in D&D. It's a long and proud tradition.

But the fact of the matter is, if you're having a RAW debate, and there's a debate about how the rule should be interpreted, SA gives you the official company intent for interpreting that rule. That's in no way to say that you should rule the same way in your games. Hell, in 5e that doesn't even mean public play (AL) has to rule that way. So there's really no right or wrong. There's what the words are free of any interpretation as to how to read them or their intent for using (RAW), and there is official RAI for how they intended them to be interpreted. And between those two, each and every DM and player is free to rule how they want at those table.

The problem here isn't arguments about what's RAW and what's RAI. It's that the arguments are about how to interpret RAW in a 'right' way or 'wrong' way, and if the official RAI is somehow 'right' or 'wrong'. And everything from that point down is purely person opinion and disagreement.

Extremely entertaining debate. I love it. I'll totally get on my high horse and be like, naw, you guys are ALL wrong and MY interpretation is the correct one, so eat it ya losers. I won an internet debate!

But the reality is none of that matters. What matters is knowing RAW (ie the exact words of the rules, nothing to do with interpretation or reading or sentence structure, just the quote), and if provided official RAI. After that it's up to us to make up our own minds how to use that. If we want to debate them and decide whose interpretation is 'right' for internet points, we're perfectly welcome to ignore official RAI, hold it up as a holy bible to be followed at all costs, be polite or rude (within forum guidelines), or whatever else we like. There's no 'rules' because what we're doing is beside the point.

And then when everyone gets off their high horses about the official results of this and why it is that way as opposed to other rulings by DMs, we can move on to why the DMs rule that way, if it improves the game to do so, and in what ways. Rules debates are boring, but rules creation is fun and much more constructive.

[Easy_Lee]

I've seen it on ENWorld and 4chan a bunch. Surprisingly civil on the latter, everyone has the understanding that it is the official ruling and that any personal rulings that differ are just addressed as such with no fanfare or consternation.

"I prefer to rule it as..." as opposed to "You are belittling and invalidating me by citing the official RAI!" Not what you expect from an anonymous site usually known for how vulgar it is...

The difference is that here, when people quote the "official" ruling, they also include the sentiment, "and therefore you're wrong."

Sage Advice is not right or wrong. Ruling against it is not right or wrong. And according to Crawford, a mix of RAF, RAI, and RAW, tailored to the particular table, is the preferred way to play. Even Crawford agrees that following strict RAI is not always best.

So there you go. Pointing out RAI is fine when you don't use it to invalidate another's ruling.

And when you do use RAI to invalidate a ruling, don't be surprised when others try to invalidate your argument.

[georgie_leech]

To me, making an entire thread to belittle, mock, and bash a prominent style of thinking seems more like bullying than any amount of debate over rules in specific threads. Personally, I despise "Rulings, not Rules" as a game concept, probably just as much as you're annoyed by the "Hierarchy of RAW/Sage/Twitter" legalistic interpretation. Do you see me making an entire thread to argue that "Rulings, not Rules" is an inane defense on an internet forum where there can be no DM with authority, and therefore there can't really be a global DM judgment call?

Increasingly as I've browsed this forum I see "Rulings, not Rules" popping up everywhere and used as a tool to stifle not only legal argument but to ignore dissenting opinion. This just seems to be a thread focused on legitimizing such attacks on people and trying to force legal argument to be a corner case while "Rulings, not Rules" is held up as some sort of sacred cow assumed to be the general standard.

Mind you, it's coming from a decent idea. One of the common complaints about 4e was an overly specific rules st that contorted sense in weird ways (that leg sweep just proned the hovering ooze? Uh, sure...), and the 'there needs to be a rule or mechanic for everything' that 3.X had tended to both stifle creativity and lead to some really weird interactions that pretty much broke the game as the designers envisioned it. Sure, chain gating Solar and sending Aleax clones of deities to do battle in your stead can be fine if you want to stretch the game that far, but it's pretty clearly not what the designers intended to make.

Thus, 'Rulings, not rules' was an attempt at addressing these. It's not meant to be a stifle of discussion, but a reminder that not playing by RAW or RAI isn't a crime. You should still acknowledge when you're arguing from that perspective, or that there are multiple interpretations of a given rule, because it's generally good form to do what you can to not spread misinformation. Like, I freely acknowledge that it's possible to read GFB as allowing Twin to apply to it. I don't think it does, but enough people believe it can for me to acknowledge it as ambiguous. So if I ever answer a rules question in a thread for something like that, I'll add 'Ask Your DM (tm)' or similar.

It's still possible to misuse it as a reason to disregard dissenting opinion, but I don't think it's the idea itself that's at fault. Let's be honest, this the Internet. We're going to get needlessly defensive about our opinions whether or not we have a convenient justification. :smallamused:

EDIT:


The difference is that here, when people quote the "official" ruling, they also include the sentiment, "and therefore you're wrong."

Sage Advice is not right or wrong. Ruling against it is not right or wrong. And according to Crawford, a mix of RAF, RAI, and RAW, tailored to the particular table, is the preferred way to play. Even Crawford agrees that following strict RAI is not always best.

So there you go. Pointing out RAI is fine when you don't use it to invalidate another's ruling.

And when you do use RAI to invalidate a ruling, don't be surprised when others try to invalidate your argument.

Thing is though, if you're trying to present an interpretation as RAI or RAW, you are opening yourself up to being correct or not. Whether it's better for any given table to run it that way is beside the point. Like, I will happily admit to being wrong about whether Half-orcs were intended to be able to grit their teeth through a Disintegration spell. I had thought that the Half-orc ability to resist death would override the general clause for what happens to targets of a Disintegrate, but SA clarified that the intention was the other way around. I'll continue to feel that it's a fluffy corner case that gives a Half-orc a bit of a boost, but I would rather be right now than argue that I was correct all along.

[Plaguescarred]

I've seen it on ENWorld and 4chan a bunch.I don't see much of this happening on EnWorld but YMMV :)

[Tanarii]

And then when everyone gets off their high horses about the official results of this and why it is that way as opposed to other rulings by DMs, we can move on to why the DMs rule that way, if it improves the game to do so, and in what ways. Rules debates are boring, but rules creation is fun and much more constructive.But how am I supposed to drive my enemies before me and hear the lamentation of their men if I can't win an internet debate about the correct interpretation of made up rules intended to be interpreted individually at each table?

[RickAllison]

But how am I supposed to drive my enemies before me and hear the lamentation of their men if I can't win an internet debate about the correct interpretation of made up rules intended to be interpreted individually at each table?

By teaching their women feminism and the virtues of a matriarchal system. Also, free chastity belts until the men agree to their full conditions!

[Easy_Lee]

By teaching their women feminism and the virtues of a matriarchal system. Also, free chastity belts until the men agree to their full conditions!

We've never had a long lasting matriarchal system in this world. Maybe things are different in D&D, where the women have the same stats as the men and the males are the pretty ones (at least among elves).

[BiPolar]

We've never had a long lasting matriarchal system in this world. Maybe things are different in D&D, where the women have the same stats as the men and the males are the pretty ones (at least among elves).

:smalleek: and end scene.

[RickAllison]

We've never had a long lasting matriarchal system in this world. Maybe things are different in D&D, where the women have the same stats as the men and the males are the pretty ones (at least among elves).

One word: Drow. Dear gods above and demons below, the Drow.

[Vogonjeltz]

I'm going to say this one last time, and then you and I are going to cease arguing about it. We're going to cease arguing about it because I'm not going to reply if you try to keep this up.

You say, "Sage Advice is a universal frame of reference for the community." No, it's not. A large portion of the community does not care about Sage Advice, and does not use it.

Don't make me get my dictionary and define "universal" for you. There is only one universal frame of reference, and that's the PHB, which we all own. Even that is questionable, since errata exists, and we don't all own the same text. But that doesn't change the fact that it's the only thing we can honestly call a "universal" frame of reference.

Sage Advice is not universal, because not everyone uses it. And that's never going to change.

Official Statements and publications, such as Sage Advice, are the only frame of reference that is shared by (accessible to) all players.

Homebrew and house rules are never acceptable as a frame of reference, because they're, quite naturally, suigeneris to those DMs/Tables and there's no plausible reason for someone else to know or care about them. Because there are potentially unlimited unofficial home rules, while there's only one Wizards of the Coast.

There's nothing wrong with using home rules, but it's an unacceptable practice to assume others care or know about them, while it's a totally acceptable normative practice to assume others will know or care what the official game is.

[MrStabby]

If you post something, you are doing it for your own ego, or else you honestly believe it to be useful to others.

Aside from ego stroking this means that you are expecting others to play by the same interpretation of the rules that you are assuming in making a post.

If you wan't to be helpful then it is probably better to go by the rules you expect others to play by. Sage Advice isn't right or wrong but it is a pretty big fat clue as to what rules/interpretaions other tables are likely to play by. It may not be an iron clad rule but it doesn't mean it isn't useful.

This doesn't mean that there can't be occasional posts about "what you could do in the game with certain house rules/alternative interpretations/tweaks", especially if posters believe they are commonly adopted (for example most posts assume people play with the alternative rules that allow feats - which seems justified given the balance of posts). If the rules underpinning a post run contrary to what an natural reading of the PHB/Errata/SA might suggest then the poster shouldn't be defensive about this being pointed out to other readers. Many are new to the game and the advice the recieve may be inappropriate to the game they are likely to find themselves in.

[Easy_Lee]

One word: Drow. Dear gods above and demons below, the Drow.

That's fair. Theirs appears to be on the brink of collapse, based on Salvatore's most recent books at least.

[georgie_leech]

That's fair. Theirs appears to be on the brink of collapse, based on Salvatore's most recent books at least.

Frankly, they're always on the brink of collapse, balancing on the edge of (and on occasion slipping into) total anarchy. This is mostly due to having a chaos deity as a patron and inspiration for most of their culture.

[Easy_Lee]

Frankly, they're always on the brink of collapse, balancing on the edge of (and on occasion slipping into) total anarchy. This is mostly due to having a chaos deity as a patron and inspiration for most of their culture.

True, but this is the first time (AFAIK) that collapse might be brought about by the males.

[2D8HP]

If the rules underpinning a post run contrary to what an natural reading of the PHB/Errata/SA might suggest then the poster shouldn't be defensive about this being pointed out to other readers. Many are new to the game and the advice the recieve may be inappropriate to the game they are likely to find themselves in.For whatever it's worth, I welcome RAW tutorials but many, especially when they relate to Spells, go past my head.

[RickAllison]

That's fair. Theirs appears to be on the brink of collapse, based on Salvatore's most recent books at least.

But how long has it lasted?

Also, matriarchy and, more common, matrilineal societies are not unknown in the real world. Sparta was dominated by women because men were expected to be off fighting; a king who stayed behind to rule would be doing a disservice to his people and Ares, so the queen was the real ruler of the realm. Additionally, much of Europe away from the Mediterranean had little particular preference and even had bouts of female autocracy.

Many North American tribes had a similar system to Sparta. While the men went off war-making, women would be left to manage the tribe and they knowledge they knew of everything the tribe needed created an interesting contrast between the theoretical leadership of the men and the practical leadership of the women. The Hopi tribe, when peace came and the men found themselves unable to attain glory through warfare, actually developed a female-central society.

[krugaan]

But how long has it lasted?

Also, matriarchy and, more common, matrilineal societies are not unknown in the real world. Sparta was dominated by women because men were expected to be off fighting; a king who stayed behind to rule would be doing a disservice to his people and Ares, so the queen was the real ruler of the realm. Additionally, much of Europe away from the Mediterranean had little particular preference and even had bouts of female autocracy.

Many North American tribes had a similar system to Sparta. While the men went off war-making, women would be left to manage the tribe and they knowledge they knew of everything the tribe needed created an interesting contrast between the theoretical leadership of the men and the practical leadership of the women. The Hopi tribe, when peace came and the men found themselves unable to attain glory through warfare, actually developed a female-central society.

Didn't earlier entries (editions) for the drow indicate females were bigger and stronger than the males?

[Plaguescarred]

Didn't earlier entries (editions) for the drow indicate females were bigger and stronger than the males?IIRC yes it did in the AD&D 2nd edition Drow of the Underdark handbook.

[krugaan]

IIRC yes it did in the AD&D 2nd edition Drow of the Underdark handbook.

I wonder how female gamers view the drow?

On the one hand, it's empowering. On the other hand, evil.

[Tanarii]

I wonder how female gamers view the drow?

On the one hand, it's empowering. On the other hand, evil.
Yeah. Awesome on both counts.

[Easy_Lee]

I wonder how female gamers view the drow?

On the one hand, it's empowering. On the other hand, evil.

Based on the sheer amount of drow art on pinterest and deviantart...

[MaxWilson]

Didn't earlier entries (editions) for the drow indicate females were bigger and stronger than the males?

Out of the Abyss contains the same claim, in the appendix at the back, so now 5E agrees with earlier editions on this point.

[Easy_Lee]

Out of the Abyss contains the same claim, in the appendix at the back, so now 5E agrees with earlier editions on this point.

That's gonna be some interesting deviantart.

[Shaofoo]

I've seen it on ENWorld and 4chan a bunch. Surprisingly civil on the latter, everyone has the understanding that it is the official ruling and that any personal rulings that differ are just addressed as such with no fanfare or consternation.

"I prefer to rule it as..." as opposed to "You are belittling and invalidating me by citing the official RAI!" Not what you expect from an anonymous site usually known for how vulgar it is...

So this place is the D&D cesspool of the internet?

[krugaan]

So this place is the D&D cesspool of the internet?

Didn't you know? The highest forum rank is "otyugh".

[RickAllison]

So this place is the D&D cesspool of the internet?

At least here we aren't periodically having to break the torch and pitchforks out to cull the ranks of cat girls and weeaboos clamoring for OP katanas.

[krugaan]

At least here we aren't periodically having to break the torch and pitchforks out to cull the ranks of cat girls and weeaboos clamoring for OP katanas.

Here we just effigy those with poor logic / opinions / attitudes.

[Agrippa]

That's gonna be some interesting deviantart.

Considering the fact that the drow coloring was inspired by black widow spiders (jet black skin, blood red eyes and pale, almost silvery white hair) then male drow should have male black widow coloring.
https://s.yimg.com/fz/api/res/1.2/twgciX2OxZX5XpwYWA9gJQ--/YXBwaWQ9c3JjaGRkO2g9NDIwO3E9OTU7dz01NjA-/http://bugguide.net/images/cache/ARHQNRZQTR50R060Z0M0Z0W0ORYKOQ80CQYKARX0CQFKUR0QOR IQH0U0R0U0S0MQL0M09RI0TQM0URFKCR2000P0.jpg
It only seems fair that male drow should be based off male black widows if female drow are based off female black widow spiders.

[Shaofoo]

Didn't you know? The highest forum rank is "otyugh".

Still cleaner than your average D&D player


At least here we aren't periodically having to break the torch and pitchforks out to cull the ranks of cat girls and weeaboos clamoring for OP katanas.

Yeah here we make sure our hatred is personalized and targeted.

Also everyone knows that weeaboos claim for OP Glaive so they can totally GWM/PAM (the most broken combo in the history of D&D don't you know). Everyone is too entranced with GWM/PAM to even care for catgirls. I am pretty sure someone here already has a dakimakura of a quarterstaff and shield combo (next to the hentai of infinite HP druids, nothing turns me on more than constantly refilling your HP).

[krugaan]

Still cleaner than your average D&D player



Yeah here we make sure our hatred is personalized and targeted.

Also everyone knows that weeaboos claim for OP Glaive so they can totally GWM/PAM (the most broken combo in the history of D&D don't you know). Everyone is too entranced with GWM/PAM to even care for catgirls. I am pretty sure someone here already has a dakimakura of a quarterstaff and shield combo (next to the hentai of infinite HP druids, nothing turns me on more than constantly refilling your HP).

I had to look up weaaboo. I like to call em' "eggs".

Speaking as a banana (twinkie, whatever) myself.

[RickAllison]

I had to look up weaaboo. I like to call em' "eggs".

Speaking as a banana (twinkie, whatever) myself.

I am clueless on those other terms. I only know weeaboo because one of the players in our nWoD game decided he wanted to be a weeaboo who hunted supernaturals using Naruto powers.

[krugaan]

I am clueless on those other terms. I only know weeaboo because one of the players in our nWoD game decided he wanted to be a weeaboo who hunted supernaturals using Naruto powers.

Eggs are white on the outside, yellow on the inside...

Twinkies and bananas are the opposite.

There's also oreos, but there's not a lot of other foods.

Whats yellow on the outside and black on the inside? I can't think of any.

[RickAllison]

Eggs are white on the outside, yellow on the inside...

Twinkies and bananas are the opposite.

There's also oreos, but there's not a lot of other foods.

Whats yellow on the outside and black on the inside? I can't think of any.

I don't know, but I remember how one Hawaiian slang term for African-Americans was the language's term for blueberry, because they look black, but are really blue when you get closer (about being defined by who they are rather than their skin color. Really deep stuff).

[krugaan]

I don't know, but I remember how one Hawaiian slang term for African-Americans was the language's term for blueberry, because they look black, but are really blue when you get closer (about being defined by who they are rather than their skin color. Really deep stuff).

Lol, never heard of it, and I live in Hawaii. Any Hawaiian word for blueberry is probably pretty new, because ancient Hawaiians never had blueberries.

Also ... what race does blue represent?

[Shaofoo]

Lol, never heard of it, and I live in Hawaii. Any Hawaiian word for blueberry is probably pretty new, because ancient Hawaiians never had blueberries.

Also ... what race does blue represent?

Na'vi

Or inbred.

[RickAllison]

Lol, never heard of it, and I live in Hawaii. Any Hawaiian word for blueberry is probably pretty new, because ancient Hawaiians never had blueberries.

Also ... what race does blue represent?

Who knows, maybe the guy was BSing me. And I think the point was that it doesn't represent anyone, it cannot be used to define a person by race. Well, maybe Violet Beauregarde. Darn it, now I feel like homebrewing an Oompa Loompa race...

[2D8HP]

Well, maybe Violet Beauregarde. Darn it, now I feel like homebrewing an Oompa Loompa race...Any thread that derails to the point of someone making a Wily Wonka reference is A-OK!
:biggrin:

[Plaguescarred]

I wonder how female gamers view the drow?

On the one hand, it's empowering. On the other hand, evil.IDK you'd have to ask one : )

Generally i find that drow are very polarising, people either love or hate them....

Except Eilistraee, everyone loves Eilistraee! (You know the pretty one dancing naked under the moon?) :smallsmile:

[Cybren]

But how long has it lasted?

Also, matriarchy and, more common, matrilineal societies are not unknown in the real world. Sparta was dominated by women because men were expected to be off fighting; a king who stayed behind to rule would be doing a disservice to his people and Ares, so the queen was the real ruler of the realm. Additionally, much of Europe away from the Mediterranean had little particular preference and even had bouts of female autocracy.

Many North American tribes had a similar system to Sparta. While the men went off war-making, women would be left to manage the tribe and they knowledge they knew of everything the tribe needed created an interesting contrast between the theoretical leadership of the men and the practical leadership of the women. The Hopi tribe, when peace came and the men found themselves unable to attain glory through warfare, actually developed a female-central society.

Matriarchy is not the same as matrilineal heritage. Spartan women were still second class citizens, and could only typically exercise political power indirectly, what they did have was more relative freedom compared to women of other Greek poleis, as they didn't live in the same house as their husbands for most of their lives. Outright matriarchy doesn't seem to exist in history, I've seen it conjectured that that's male reproductive biology encourages more risk taking, and thus, violent assertions of authority, but I'm not confident in fully exploring Evo-psych with just half remembered googling S