Why do you guys follow the SA and Tweets?

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Hello guys :)

I saw that a lot of you follow ruling from tweeter. I can understand some of it as I saw some that write the same as RAW but in different words so people will understand but some of them are interpretation of the rules.

I don't understand why will someone will follow a random(I know that the tweets are from people that connect to the game development) people rule interpretation as the only rule interpretation that matters is the DM/table/group rule interpretation.

As a RAW player I don't understand it, if the tweet ruling needed a change they will need publish a new Errata in order to change RAW.

If it helps I am normally the group rule lawyer when I don't DM as my DM have hard time with learning the new edition different rules(we came from 3.5e, it is a lot easier to learn 5e then 3.5e), he always confused the two editions rules.


English is not my primary language, I will like to know if I did any mistakes. i will like to know if something need clarification.

Have a good day guys(Also girls, I forgot that guys doesn't always address a multi-gender group) :)

[JoeJ]

If we didn't, what would playgrounders have to argue about? (Okay, alignment. But what else?)

[BloodSnake'sCha]

If we didn't, what would playgrounders have to argue about? (Okay, alignment. But what else?)

Optimization, it is fun to build a character around a single something (I miss my chaos Sorcerer from 3.5e, she died to soon from something stupid).


Tactics, helping guys that ask for help, cool storys, random stuff, the fight to silence the Sorcerer King.

Our own ruling.

[Mork]

Sage advice is given by jeremy crawford mainly. He is the lead rule designer for wizard of the coast if I'm not mistaken. So it's not just some random person.
For me, the rules in the books are not always 100% clear, some of them can be interpreted in multiple ways. With the sage advice I can get an idea what the RAI is, when RAW is not clear.
Of course it is possible to houserule all the edge cases, but I find that referring to a higher power in this case removes some of the arguing at the table.

It could be that you don't see the need for some other person interpreting the rules as you are the only rule lawyer in your group. But when you have multiple rule lawyers in the group, any way to settle debates about rules is welcome :P

[Unoriginal]

Hello guys :)

I saw that a lot of you follow ruling from tweeter. I can understand some of it as I saw some that write the same as RAW but in different words so people will understand but some of them are interpretation of the rules.

I don't understand why will someone will follow a random(I know that the tweets are from people that connect to the game development) people rule interpretation as the only rule interpretation that matters is the DM/table/group rule interpretation.

As a RAW player I don't understand it, if the tweet ruling needed a change they will need publish a new Errata in order to change RAW.

They're not from "a randm people", they're from Jeremy Crawford, who is the official rule guy of this edition.


In principle, the actual Sage Advice is only rule clarification, not ruling (ex: when someone ask if vampires are humanoids). When it's ruling, it's made clear it's only Crawford's opinion on the subject.

[Jerrykhor]

If you'r a RAW guy then ofc you won't understand it, because SA and tweets are RAI.

Personally, my respect for SA has diminished since JC's ruling on Shield Master feat. I was about to laugh it off until my DM went like 'JC said it, therefore it should be this way'.

Other than that, theres not many errata because JC has always been like 'Don't like my ruling? Don't use it'. You don't need someone to tell you how to run your game. Stick with RAW, SA only when RAW is unclear.

[Lyracian]

For me Sage Advice is just the F.A.Q. for the game; some clarification to help people if the RAW/RAI is not quite clear. Personally I do not pay any attention to Tweets.

[Lombra]

I just prefer to use Rules As Intended. If a Rules As Written reading is making little sense or is silly, I'll go for what makes the most sense, which generally is how the developers intended that rule.

[ProsecutorGodot]

I pick and choose what works best for my table. The recent shield master ruling wasn't well liked in the group when I brought it up, so we don't use it. However, the ruling that allows magic missile damage to be rolled as one dice for the damage of all missiles rather than individually is well liked, so we use it.

I think it's a good place to start if you've got questions about some of the poorly worded mechanics, as well as one of the only places to get an accurate gauge of the intended reading of rules.

[Tanarii]

Because Sage Advice is the name of the official FAQ. As with any game, it's useful to have the FAQ when trying to figure out how the rules are supposed to work. And unlike previous Sage Advice writers (who weren't technically even writing a modern FAQ until 3e), the current one doesn't intentionally make house rules and rules changes (errata) in SA. He also considers things before they make it into the FAQ, and even reconsiders things later.

Tweets are a different matter. I don't use Twitter, so I don't 'follow, them. I do like to see them when relevant in an online discussion, because they come from a lead developer so they provide interesting insight. Even when I wholly disagree with them. Unlike SA, the tweets (including the so-called SA website that collects 'rulings' from the tweets) are not particularly well considered. This is recognized, and as such they are not the official FAQ. They are a somewhat off-the-cuff opinion of the lead developer. That makes them less than useful compared to a FAQ for running a game, but still interesting to someone who is on a forum mostly just to kill time by having fun arguing about the rules and the 'philosophy' of them. (Not going to pretend I have any real reason to be here.)

Some people seem to try to like to use the tweets as an ace-card to try and 'win' a multi-page forum debate. That's silly. But using Sage Advice (the actual document) to answer a rules question from a poster looking for a quick answer makes perfect sense.

[Throne12]

It a tradition that started from the very beginning of d&d Conception. People would call Gary Gygax house and ask him how things worked or ask questions about rules.

[Tanarii]

It a tradition that started from the very beginning of d&d Conception. People would call Gary Gygax house and ask him how things worked or ask questions about rules.
Right. People still do that (online now) with companies with a big and small fan base. It's just that small fan base are more likely to get answers. For example the designer of gloomhaven is pretty active at answering questions over at board game geeks.

It's pretty amazing that with a fan base the size of 5e's, the lead designer takes the time to interactively answer online rules questions at all.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I treat Sage Advice (on twitter or published) as persuasive evidence for what the developers meant when they wrote the text. It's not rules, but then again neither is the text. They're both tools to help us (the people at the table) collectively decide what the rules should be for our table.

I don't believe in RAW (as a binding thing). Or RAI. The only important rules are Rules as Chosen by the Table (RaCbT, not so nice an initialism). Do they match the text or the developers' intent? Not important as long as a) everyone agrees on what they are and b) they work for everyone.

[Unoriginal]

The only important rules are Rules as Chosen by the Table (RaCbT, not so nice an initialism).

How about calling it Rules as Table-Specific

[mephnick]

If you'r a RAW guy then ofc you won't understand it, because SA and tweets are RAI.

Personally, my respect for SA has diminished since JC's ruling on Shield Master feat.

It was not understanding why Healing Spirit was a problem for me. Seemed like a total lack of understanding for what D&D is at its core. But yeah, Shield Master pissed me off.

I like 5e, but it doesn't make JC infallible and him being a lead designer doesn't necessarily mean he's the best person for the job of handling the rules.

Anyone who ever dealt with SK Reynolds should understand that designers' rulings need to come with a huge heaping of salt.

[JakOfAllTirades]

I don't have a twitter account, and I don't GAF what anyone says on twitter. In particular, I think WOTC's "rules update via tweet" project has been extremely poorly implemented , even if it has merit in theory.

If I want updates, I'll buy the next edition of the game.

[Keravath]

As with almost any game, the reading of RAW can vary from person to person. Sometimes this is due to facility with language of the reader, sometimes it is due to a rule that can be read more than one way due to punctuation or lack of it, sometimes things aren't as clearly stated as they could be and other times there are "gaps" in the rules that then interact with other parts of the rules to create unexpected consequences (e.g. coffeelocks).

D&D is a creative game. It is played by a DM who adjudicates the rules and their table of players who take actions that the DM then tries to resolve. The range of possibilities is infinite and as a result any difficulty or misconception in reading the rules can result as a conflict during play when players and/or DMs disagree on what a rule says.

Shield Master is a great example:
"If you take the Attack action on your turn, you can use a bonus action to try to shove a creature within 5 feet of you with your shield."

The amount of argument over the meaning of "take" in this context and whether the attack action has to be taken before the bonus action is available or whether just taking the action on your turn is sufficient to trigger the bonus action at any point in the turn is HUGE. In addition, it is a difference of opinion that can't really be resolved based on the text as written though others might argue otherwise :)

This could have been written as:
"If you have taken the attack action ..."
"If you will take ... "
.. both of which clearly specify the intended timing. Just "take" is open to interpretation.

THIS is only one example of many where the RAW can be interpreted differently.

-------------

Enter the role of Sage Advice. Sage Advice is a document primarily prepared by Jeremy Crawford who is the lead rules designer for D&D 5e. As a result, he should have more insight into what was intended when the rule was written and how the rules were play tested. I think this is the main reason some folks give his opinion more weight than other folks, he is probably as close as any to being able to give official interpretations of the rules.

However, I think that one thing a lot of folks tend to forget when arguing rules is that the goal of the game is to have fun. Whatever works at YOUR table should be just fine. The main issue with interpretation arises in organized play where you want the "same" rules in use at each table. Other than that, it is up to your DM (and their players) to decide how you want to play it at your table and then just use it consistently.

Finally, I always find it useful to keep in mind that Jeremy Crawford is always wearing two hats. He is the lead rules designer for D&D 5e AND he is a DM. As a DM, he chooses the rules interpretation that works for him and his players. As the lead rules designer he is looking beyond how he would play it to how the D&D framework is suggesting it be played for every player and DM playing the game.

Sometimes these two viewpoints may not match :) ... sometimes he might play things not exactly as written for one reason or another (the "rule of cool" comes to mind) ... as a result, when JC responds to a question in a tweet I am personally never sure whether he is responding as JC the DM or JC the rules designer so I'll read his tweets and if they make sense I might use that interpretation and otherwise not. Sage Advice has had a little more review so it gets a little more weight but everyone should feel free to ignore it if it doesn't mesh with how you run the game. Finally, there is errata which actually changes the rules in the published documents and that I will always pay attention to since it is something that the entire staff of game designers thought it was necessary to address.

[Misterwhisper]

Something I have often wondered;

Maybe the non-English editions of the PHB are a little more clear?

The English language has so many exceptions and odd rules that it is very easy to mean something different to what you meant.

Ex: Melee Weapon Attack, there are STILL debates on some things in this game as to what type of attack they are.

Anyone have a different language version of the PHB that might be more clear due to less ambiguous language use?

[RSP]

We, at my table, generally follow RAW, but sometimes there isn’t clarity on how a rule is supposed to function, which is where learning about the designer’s intent comes in.

We aren’t beholden to their rulings or clarifications, but even with gaming 1x/wk since 2014, they’ve had more experience with the game and went through tons of play test for old and new rules. That experience is worth something in my eyes, even when I don’t agree with how they make rulings.

[RSP]

Something I have often wondered;

Maybe the non-English editions of the PHB are a little more clear?

The English language has so many exceptions and odd rules that it is very easy to mean something different to what you meant.

Ex: Melee Weapon Attack, there are STILL debates on some things in this game as to what type of attack they are.

Anyone have a different language version of the PHB that might be more clear due to less ambiguous language use?

It would actually probably be amazingly helpful if game terms retained their English version while the rest of the book was in a non-English language. I know JC has commented on how they didn’t do a great job differentiating the two. This alone would solve a ton of debates.

[Yunru]

Ha! Ha! Ha!
...
I don't.

Especially nowadays when he basically just quotes the text back at you, with the strictest reading, then makes up a flavour to suit it.

[Tanarii]

Anyone who ever dealt with SK Reynolds should understand that designers' rulings need to come with a huge heaping of salt.
Skip Williams was the one that basically ruined "Sage Advice" as a useful FAQ. He was really good at "suggestions on how you can house rule your home game to make X work" though. Which was exactly what was needed when he started playing the game.

The issue came when people who wanted to know the difference between "how does this rule work" and "how can you house rule this"? And like many early gamers, skip saw those as one and the same thing, and never distinguished between them in any significant way. And that carried through into 3e, where it clashed horribly with a heavily mechanized edition and a fan base mindset that wanted to know how this stuff was supposed to work. Not how to hack it to make it work.

That's why Crawford is a breath of fresh air. He just leaves the latter stuff out, and Sage Advice is useful as a FAQ. Plenty of bloggers out there to tell you how to hack it to make it work the way you want.

[guachi]

I don't follow it religiously. I usually only see his tweets regarding rules when someone posts it on a forum, though Crawford is one of the few (10) people I follow on Twitter.

However, I like to know what it is the designers think the rules say. I mean, they wrote it. Who better to know the RAW and RAI? Personally, I'd prefer if, when giving an answer, that he would take another tweet to briefly explain the rule. I don't think I've ever seen Crawford make a multi-part tweet but come rules could certainly benefit from it.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Sage advice is given by jeremy crawford mainly. He is the lead rule designer for wizard of the coast if I'm not mistaken. So it's not just some random person.
For me, the rules in the books are not always 100% clear, some of them can be interpreted in multiple ways. With the sage advice I can get an idea what the RAI is, when RAW is not clear.
Of course it is possible to houserule all the edge cases, but I find that referring to a higher power in this case removes some of the arguing at the table.

It could be that you don't see the need for some other person interpreting the rules as you are the only rule lawyer in your group. But when you have multiple rule lawyers in the group, any way to settle debates about rules is welcome :P
That reasonable, prefer to hold a vote or let the guy that his character is effected by the rule to choose how to use the rule.

They're not from "a randm people", they're from Jeremy Crawford, who is the official rule guy of this edition.


In principle, the actual Sage Advice is only rule clarification, not ruling (ex: when someone ask if vampires are humanoids). When it's ruling, it's made clear it's only Crawford's opinion on the subject.
That why I ask, why will you use someone else's opinion on the rules?

If you'r a RAW guy then ofc you won't understand it, because SA and tweets are RAI.

Personally, my respect for SA has diminished since JC's ruling on Shield Master feat. I was about to laugh it off until my DM went like 'JC said it, therefore it should be this way'.

Other than that, theres not many errata because JC has always been like 'Don't like my ruling? Don't use it'. You don't need someone to tell you how to run your game. Stick with RAW, SA only when RAW is unclear.

I stick with RAW in my game(and of course my interpretation).
I know that there is RAI, what I ask is why do you ise his interpretation of the rules.
He my be the official rule guy but he doesn't play at your table.

[CorporateSlave]

How about calling it Rules as Table-Specific

When RAW just doesn't cut it, my group prefers to go with communally liked, instituted table-official rules interpreted situationally. Not everyone's cup 'o tea, but seems to be a general preference.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

WOW, a lot of people answered when I was at work.

I read it all, I still don't really get it but I got close enough. Now it is the fun part where the thread evolve into something interesting.


Something I have often wondered;

Maybe the non-English editions of the PHB are a little more clear?

The English language has so many exceptions and odd rules that it is very easy to mean something different to what you meant.

Ex: Melee Weapon Attack, there are STILL debates on some things in this game as to what type of attack they are.

Anyone have a different language version of the PHB that might be more clear due to less ambiguous language use?

Well, it is worse in my language, that why I use the English version.

The problem is that there are to many ways to translate it to my language with slightly different meaning so you will never know what was the meaning and some stuff disappear.

[Rukelnikov]

I treat Sage Advice (on twitter or published) as persuasive evidence for what the developers meant when they wrote the text. It's not rules, but then again neither is the text. They're both tools to help us (the people at the table) collectively decide what the rules should be for our table.

I don't believe in RAW (as a binding thing). Or RAI. The only important rules are Rules as Chosen by the Table (RaCbT, not so nice an initialism). Do they match the text or the developers' intent? Not important as long as a) everyone agrees on what they are and b) they work for everyone.

Call it RAT, Rules At Table

[Trickery]

In my experience, most people don't follow sage advice except online. Online, some treat Crawford as the DM.

There is no DM on the internet, but having one is crucial for D&D. Everything a player says is just theory until the DM makes a ruling. As the final arbiter of how the rules work, the DM is effectively playing as the world. Discussing D&D without including the DM is like trying to theorycraft a video game without playing it. It's like a hypothesis without a test.

People feel that lack of a DM even if they don't realize it. That's why Crawford is brought up so often on forums. It's also why a weird kind of groupthink emerges online, with everyone behaving as though a particular interpretation of a rule is the only interpretation, despite many tables ruling it differently. People don't want to qualify their points with "if your DM rules things this way," even though we all often should.

What people actually do at the table is play in the way that makes sense for their group. And that's what you should do at the table. Talking about D&D online is a different game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Call it RAT, Rules At Table

That works better.

I'm also pretty sure (based on Crawford's statements) that RAT is what is intended. There are some "rules" (textual pieces) that are mission-critical and deeply connected to the rest of the system. If you mess with those, you're likely to have to fix lots of other things to compensate. Those are the core things (this list IMO):

* Action economy
* Bounded accuracy (specifically for attack modifiers, AC, saving throw modifiers and DCs)
* The multi-monster, multi-encounter paradigm

Then there are core principles that, if followed, will usually make your readings match the "intent".
* Simplicity. If two readings have equal "validity", go with the simpler one.
* Exception-based design. Everything in a class, race, feat or spell is an exception to general rules found in Chapter 1 and Chapters 7-10. A few exceptions exist in those chapters as well, but are marked as such. Exceptions do not interact--you can't use one exception to interpret a different exception unless the two are explicitly linked.
* Fiction-forward game-play. If a reading makes the obvious fictional outcome awkward or impossible, it's probably not the right reading for that situation. The fiction takes precedence if they conflict.
* Anything not delegated to the player ("you pick" or similar) is chosen by the DM.

[Asmotherion]

There's two types of tweets.

One that is totally cool is clearyfication of existing RAW when the RAW is Blurry and can be interpreated in numerous ways.

The other is Reinterpreating RAW that was clearly previously interpreated some other way before and creating "new rulings". The same goes with the Errata (for example the Sorcerer's Elemental Affinity that was severally nerfed in the errata for no obvious reason). in those aspects i believe the interventions in the RAW are unwanted.

[Arcangel4774]

Im hesitant to follow either without a rationale as to why, beyond RAI.

The great weapon fighting style for example, was said to be limited to weapon damage for the purpose of limiting the time it takes to reroll dice and take your turn, not for power balancing.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

Im hesitant to follow either without a rationale as to why, beyond RAI.

The great weapon fighting style for example, was said to be limited to weapon damage for the purpose of limiting the time it takes to reroll dice and take your turn, not for power balancing.

Ooch, this is a terrible thing to do to a player.

I do give player time limit for their turns but only for the declaration part. I will never punish a player for counting slow, especially when an online roller can fix it .

[Contrast]

Ooch, this is a terrible thing to do to a player.

I do give player time limit for their turns but only for the declaration part. I will never punish a player for counting slow, especially when an online roller can fix it .

I think it had less to do with counting and more to do with rolling. A smiting paladin could potentially be rolling 18 dice on a crit.

Of course meteor storm exists so I'd take that rationale with a grain of salt.

[KorvinStarmast]

Rules as Chosen by the Table (RaCbT, not so nice an initialism). Try Rules as Fun. RAF. Works for me. :smallsmile: We do this to have fun.

[Yunru]

I think it had less to do with counting and more to do with rolling. A smiting paladin could potentially be rolling 18 dice on a crit.

Of course meteor storm exists so I'd take that rationale with a grain of salt.

Yeah but their logic was sketchy in the first place. It's quicker to glance at your dice, pick out the 1s and 2s, and reroll them, than it is to glance at your dice, work out which ones were for the weapon, see if any are 1s or 2s, then reroll them.

[KorvinStarmast]

Skip Williams was the one that basically ruined "Sage Advice" as a useful FAQ. -snip- That's why Crawford is a breath of fresh air. He just leaves the latter stuff out, and Sage Advice is useful as a FAQ. Plenty of bloggers out there to tell you how to hack it to make it work the way you want. Yes.
I think it had less to do with counting and more to do with rolling. A smiting paladin could potentially be rolling 18 dice on a crit. Of course meteor storm exists so I'd take that rationale with a grain of salt. I thought it was inane, and it was the beginning of my "are you serious?" response to questions like that. As you say, meteor storm exists, so to me the way to go id to roll the damn dice and reroll the 1's and 2's .. all of them, as written .. or don't use that mechanic at all and instead give the fighter something else.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

I think it had less to do with counting and more to do with rolling. A smiting paladin could potentially be rolling 18 dice on a crit.

Of course meteor storm exists so I'd take that rationale with a grain of salt.

They're both rare.
Crits are rare and need to be epic, just like level 9 spell.

[Finback]

Right. People still do that (online now) with companies with a big and small fan base.

I do it now with a ouija board and an egg-cup full of blood..

.. wait, are we still talking about Gary Gygax specifically?!

[Tanarii]

I do it now with a ouija board and an egg-cup full of blood..

.. wait, are we still talking about Gary Gygax specifically?!
I never know where my sentence structure will take me and neither do my readers! :smallbiggrin:

[Kane0]

I pick and choose what works best for my table. The recent shield master ruling wasn't well liked in the group when I brought it up, so we don't use it. However, the ruling that allows magic missile damage to be rolled as one dice for the damage of all missiles rather than individually is well liked, so we use it.

I think it's a good place to start if you've got questions about some of the poorly worded mechanics, as well as one of the only places to get an accurate gauge of the intended reading of rules.

Excuse me sir/madam, we cannot tolerate that sort of reasonable thinking here. I’m going to have to ask you to hand over your forum license.

[Arkhios]

This is a personal opinion, so nothing that has been said before is relevant to me:

I don't follow Tweets as official statements until they are added to official Errata or Sage Advice Compendium (pdf document that can be found on Wizards' website; NOT the 3rd party website which lists tweets as such).

Twitter is not a source official enough to me, as it simply allows the designers and other people involved to quickly answer what they think is appropriate. It doesn't matter (to me anyway) whether it was said by Crawford, Perkins, or Mearls, although I tend to weigh the trustworthiness in that order, with Mearls as the least trustworthy (because he changes his mind the most frequently and is rarely consistent).

I trust Crawford the most because he is the lead designer and involved with the actual mechanics, while Perkins is involved with the lore and story, and Mearls is merely involved with the flavor aspects in between.

Still, until their statements are officialized in Errata/SAC, I play by ear and compare their thoughts to my own.

[djreynolds]

Because S.A. shows they care about their products.

Many of the questions... I honestly feel bad they were posted, some seem silly.

But this shows that D&D has grown beyond intellectuals, and everyone is playing.

As a DM, I use it when a player and I disagree, and cannot come to terms. Its like the guys doing instant replay.

[Yunru]

As a DM, I use it when a player and I disagree, and cannot come to terms. Its like the guys doing instant replay.

But as a DM that's your job, not some guy on Twitter's.

[Bundin]

But as a DM that's your job, not some guy on Twitter's.

Until you decide otherwise, if the DM is always right, he is right to defer to SA. Especially when that takes away all hints of "you're just targeting me with this ruling" :)

Most players I know IRL accept everything that's in the SA Compendium without question, both as players and as DMs. Personally, I'm fine with everything in there, and if something gets unexpectedly clarified, resulting in a nerf, I'll offer any affected player to swap out relevant spells/feats/abilities after the next session and will stick to the old rule until that's done.

I'd also have no issue as player or DM if the table decides to keep the old interpretation for that campaign, or until the affected character(s) get retired/replaced.

As for religiously following the tweets: no. I occasionally check of there's an updated compendium and sometimes use the search function to see if there's anything about a topic that came up at the table.

[Trickery]

Until you decide otherwise, if the DM is always right, he is right to defer to SA. Especially when that takes away all hints of "you're just targeting me with this ruling" :)

Most players I know IRL accept everything that's in the SA Compendium without question, both as players and as DMs. Personally, I'm fine with everything in there, and if something gets unexpectedly clarified, resulting in a nerf, I'll offer any affected player to swap out relevant spells/feats/abilities after the next session and will stick to the old rule until that's done.

I've had just the opposite experience. Most of the people I've met at the table don't know that SA even exists. I've gotten the impression that quoting SA is much more common online. Which isn't a surprise. There's no DM online, so people use SA as the defacto DM.

[Rhedyn]

As a RAW player I don't understand it, if the tweet ruling needed a change they will need publish a new Errata in order to change RAW.

If it helps I am normally the group rule lawyer when I don't DM as my DM have hard time with learning the new edition different rules(we came from 3.5e, it is a lot easier to learn 5e then 3.5e), he always confused the two editions rules.
This is why you are having trouble. Sage Advice is a collection of bad house rules famously penned by the lead rules dev of 5e.

There is much speculation as to why he is doing this, but I'd like to assume it's an elaborate way to convince forum goers to stop asking for "official rulings".

[BloodSnake'sCha]

This is why you are having trouble. Sage Advice is a collection of bad house rules famously penned by the lead rules dev of 5e.

There is much speculation as to why he is doing this, but I'd like to assume it's an elaborate way to convince forum goers to stop asking for "official rulings".

I don't think that anyone can call a house rule bad outside of there table and there is no table in here

Something tell me that you are not right as your argument is based on something subjective.

Can you try to rewrite it or to explain it?

[ProsecutorGodot]

I don't think that anyone can call a house rule bad outside of there table and there is no table in here

Something tell me that you are not right as your argument is based on something subjective.

Can you try to rewrite it or to explain it?

Rhedyn has a very personal bias against the existence of Sage Advice, believing that it's wrong on principle of telling players what they're allowed to do.

It does no such thing, and this has been explained time and time again, however, Rhedyn always jumps headfirst into any discussion even loosely related to Sage Advice just to tell anyone who listens how much of a problem it is as an optional resource.

It's not really a big deal, they're allowed to believe this. I just wish they were more amicable in sharing this point of view.

[Rhedyn]

I don't think that anyone can call a house rule bad outside of there table and there is no table in here

Something tell me that you are not right as your argument is based on something subjective.

Can you try to rewrite it or to explain it?To state it clearly:

I am biased towards Sage Advice. My subjective opinion is that it is bad. I believe that using or referencing it is objectively bad for a table and will only make their game worse. (the latter is objective because you can test that)

To state it more clearly: Sage Advice = bad

People referencing it shouldn't be.

Another attempt: You being confused by people referencing Sage Advice is a correct reaction because referencing it does not make sense.

[CorporateSlave]

I am biased towards Sage Advice. My subjective opinion is that it is bad. I believe that using or referencing it is objectively bad for a table and will only make their game worse. (the latter is objective because you can test that)

"objectively?"

I think Inigo Montoya might have something to say about the use of the word here...subjective opinions about Sage Advice or anything is fine; attempting to justify as "objective" one's subjective opinion though...how can one test making a game "worse" objectively, without first making subjective assumptions about what a particular table/player likes or doesn't? An "objective" test of subjective opinions is still subjective. I would grant that it is obviously bad for your table, since it obviously makes you enjoy the game less and therefore makes the game worse for you, and presumably by extension anyone playing with you.

SA could take away from some games, it could add to others. Its a nice idea that "DM is Lord" and should be making these calls All The Time, but realistically, at tables with a bunch of friends playing, an outside arbiter (official, semi-official, whatever) on controversial rule ambiguities can help keep the peace without the local DM having to be the "bad guy"...or being accused of favoritism which can breed resentment.

Sage Advice can't be objectively bad or objectively good, since in a game where ultimately the goal is to have fun, subjective opinions are all that matter in the end. If your DM or table doesn't like Sage Advice "rulings" because they think it goes against the game system or takes away local DM autonomy somehow, then its "bad" for them. If your DM or table likes Sage Advice "rulings" and finds them useful and a convenient way to resolve conflicts or rules questions, then its "good" for them.

I guess you could say my subjective opinion is that conflating one's opinion with objective fact is responsible for so many of the problems in the world today, I'd rather not see it in this little corner of make-believe that we go to in order to get away from the real world.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I guess you could say my subjective opinion is that conflating one's opinion with objective fact is responsible for so many of the problems in the world today, I'd rather not see it in this little corner of make-believe that we go to in order to get away from the real world.

Amen to that. "I don't like X" is not equivalent to "X is bad." I'm guilty of this myself too many times--it's human nature. But it's still something to be fought wherever possible.

[n00b]

So let me get this straight. At our table we're trying to figure out if an interpretation is correct. We look at Sage Advice and find something relevant. We agree that is probably the way that it should work and abide by that. If we do it that way we're doing it wrong?

[Yunru]

So let me get this straight. At our table we're trying to figure out if an interpretation is correct. We look at Sage Advice and find something relevant. We agree that is probably the way that it should work and abide by that. If we do it that way we're doing it wrong?

Yes. It's the bit in bold that's wrong.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Yes. It's the bit in bold that's wrong.

Woe betide the DM who tries to make an informed decision, that's just plain wrong.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes. It's the bit in bold that's wrong.

Wait...what? There are two options.

a) Nothing in the SA is relevant to the situation. You're not worse off than you were before, minus a tiny bit of time.

b) Something is relevant to the situation. You now have additional information to consider in your decision, but nothing is binding. If you disagree, you do something differently and no big deal.

So using SA (time permitting) can only be useful. Unless of course you're playing with people who want to weaponize rules. But that doesn't depend on SA in particular, only on those jerks. They'll weaponize anything.

Now I wouldn't say you must refer to SA, especially during a session. But that's because I value table time and don't do any rule lookups unless they're critical. I rule and move on, coming back and fixing where absolutely necessary. But between sessions/after a session (for future reference)? SA can only be a positive IMO.

[Trickery]

I think SA could have merit, or more merit, if it wasn't on Twitter. Twitter gives you the what but does not allow enough characters for the why.

Because D&D is an open game where anything can happen, SA can't possibly cover every situation. The why is more important.

DMs are going to rule however they see fit regardless of what SA says, but DMs don't usually consider every possible situation in the moment. They need to make a snap ruling to keep the game moving. If SA answers told DMs the reason for rulings, that could inform the DM's rulings on other things.

[Yunru]

SA can only be a positive IMO.

Not at all. SA (and I'm not including the Compendium here) adds a bias that can result in unfun at your table.
Sure, most of your players might have said rule it the other way, but they agree to go with SA because it's "more official."
Table rulings should be just that: from the table.

[n00b]

Now I wouldn't say you must refer to SA, especially during a session. But that's because I value table time and don't do any rule lookups unless they're critical. I rule and move on, coming back and fixing where absolutely necessary. But between sessions/after a session (for future reference)? SA can only be a positive IMO.

This exactly. I would not try to look up something mid-session. I'd do what the DM says. I might say I thought it was this way instead, but if he says this is the way it is I'm all in with it and make it work. Between sessions though? If I don't agree I can look things up. If I find something that's relevant I'll present it. If he then says sure, we can do it that way then it's great. If he still says no, then well it's his table and I go with that. Not sure where SA becomes some tool fraught with evil.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Not at all. SA (and I'm not including the Compendium here) adds a bias that can result in unfun at your table.
Sure, most of your players might have said rule it the other way, but they agree to go with SA because it's "more official."
Table rulings should be just that: from the table.

I have a few problems with statements like this.
1) You're never forced to use SA. If you have a player who tries to force you to DM (or a DM who forces you to play) in a way in strict accordance with SA, that's not the compendiums fault. It's an issue you should take up with that person. Blaming a resource for this issue is, in my opinion, being very dismissive about the actual issue you're facing.
2) Pretending that a DM who makes the choice to use SA as a guideline for their rulings hasn't made their own rulings. It's not as if SA is printed on the back of every DMG or PHB or even attached to the SRD you can print out from the WoTC site, they searched it out willingly for those answers in most cases and arguing that they haven't made their own decision to is ridiculous.
3)These hard stances against SA always rely on the assumption that a DM or group will read "official rulings" and take that the most aggressively domineering way possible, when the compendium spells it out clear as crystal:

A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.

The rulings are strictly made at your table, by your DM. If your DM uses Sage Advice to help reach their rulings, you should view that as their ruling.

[DMThac0]

Not at all. SA (and I'm not including the Compendium here) adds a bias that can result in unfun at your table.
Sure, most of your players might have said rule it the other way, but they agree to go with SA because it's "more official."
Table rulings should be just that: from the table.

In that same vein any, and all, forum discussions add a bias that can result in "unfun" at your table. If any of us ask a question on the forum it is no longer ruling "from the table" as you put it. You advocate not getting your information from Sage Advice but you use the Forums to give/gather information...that sounds kind of like you're perpetrating the same kind of "unfun"...

As it has been stated on many, many, many occasions: The books are guidelines under the misnomer of rules. Any and all information about how a thing in the game can be interpreted is nothing more than an opinion on said guidelines. Whether it be from the Core books, Supplemental material, Splat books, Twitter, or from the mouth of Crawford himself, it should all be considered an opinion. This is because, of all that you said, the truth of it is in your last line: table rulings are from the table. Everything else is just helping you form that ruling.

[Yunru]

In that same vein any, and all, forum discussions add a bias that can result in "unfun" at your table. If any of us ask a question on the forum it is no longer ruling "from the table" as you put it.
Indeed, and at the time when the ruling is necessary I'd also advocate against searching online.

Forums, Sage Advice, etc., should all only be used after the fact to decide how you would rule it if it happens again, when you've time to reflect on it and consult your players.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Indeed, and at the time when the ruling is necessary I'd also advocate against searching online.


But that's because of the time waste, not the nature of advice or it not being "from the table."

And forums and SA are also useful prospectively, to make you aware of things before they come up at the table.

[JoeJ]

I have a few problems with statements like this.
1) You're never forced to use SA. If you have a player who tries to force you to DM (or a DM who forces you to play) in a way in strict accordance with SA, that's not the compendiums fault. It's an issue you should take up with that person. Blaming a resource for this issue is, in my opinion, being very dismissive about the actual issue you're facing.

If you don't use SA, you're no better off than if you hadn't bothered to look it up at all. If you do, you're definitely worse, because the writers have the magical ability to make rulings that are wrong for every table ever.

[SociopathFriend]

Frankly my main DM plays fast and loose with the rules a great deal as it is such as being pretty arbitrary when and how to use them.
For example Alignment:
Eat corpses of slain enemies for food facing starvation? Alignment change to Evil
Rip a man in half because someone informed you he was a traitor trying to kill allies? Alignment change to Evil
Steal gold from a church and piss in their holy water for personal gain and spite? And trying to plant evidence on a child to make it seem as though they did it? No change

All three of these characters are/were Chaotic Neutral prior to the shift or lack thereof.
Of those three examples, only one was actively punished when touching a 'Good' holy relic with like 10d6 damage (I don't remember the exact amount but it knocked a level 10 Hill Dwarf Barbarian to less than half hp) while the others never suffered any repercussions at all. And that was the corpse-eater.

Admittedly alignment is not the best example but it's the most recent one that comes to mind since the church bit happened last session.
So regardless of how much I may frequent forums and check out Sage Advice, if the DM won't abide by the core rules anymore than he wants to, he's never going to care all that much about online rules that are yet another step removed from the game itself.

Probably a better example would be the DM believing Teleport was a 5th level spell without checking and then after a session or two of using it- was informed that it was 7th level. His solution was to still let the party continue using it.
As opposed to, you know, not letting the Wizard keep using the spell.

[Snowbluff]

I usually don't unless there's something in RAW that makes other things that are intended not work right at all. IE, improvised weapons should only be considered weapons when used as weapons so Dueling Style works when you have random stuff in your offhand.

[Rhedyn]

If you do, you're definitely worse, because the writers have the magical ability to make rulings that are wrong for every table ever.You know, JC's accomplishment with this is remarkable, when you put it that way.

Truly he must agonize on how to perfectly form the worst Sage Advice possible (when he isn't just quoting the book back at people).

I'm jokingly convinced he is doing it so people stop going online for "official rulings" and just ask their DM (or themselves if they are the DM)

[BarneyBent]

Can be good for certain things. For example, clarification on “weapon attack” versus “melee attack” versus “attack with a melee weapon” meanings, when they would use each bit of language and why. That’s not a ruling, that’s a guide to reading the rules.

It should also be noted that Shield Master wasn’t a ruling, it was a clarification on how triggers for bonus actions work - i.e. you must take the Attack Action first, because you can’t declare an order of attacks. If you took the bonus action Shield Bash and then somebody used their reaction (trigger of “attack an ally”) to attack you with a disarming strike, you might decide ****-it, I don’t want to finish that attack.

Of course, a simple and common sense houserule to fix that would be use it or lose it, i.e. you can declare an attack action if at the moment you do so, you have a valid target. You can use a bonus action that triggers because of that Attack action before the Attack, but you must still use your action to Attack if at all possible, and if for some reason things have changed and you can’t, you lose your action.

But if JC tweeted out that, then people would bitch about him using SA to promote house rules. It’s no-win.

SA is a useful tool to get hard clarification on what things mean (e.g. “melee weapon attack”, “take Attack action”). It’s also useful to get into the minds of the designers for more nuanced calls, but these are pretty much always qualified as “our intent”, “it doesn’t really matter”, “I run it like this”, that sort of thing.

Perhaps JC could be more clear when it’s the former or the latter but I don’t think it’s that difficult. The passionate hatred for all things SA by some people seems disproportionate and way out of step with reality. If a DM isn’t good enough to not be unduly influenced by SA to the detriment of their game, then they’re probably not good enough to make their own calls either.

Disclaimer: I pretty much ignore Mike Mearls.

[Finback]

I'm just going to note that using SA isn't always bad.

Because today, I saw someone ask if a tortle druid maintains the AC17 whilst in wildshape. I have NO DOUBT that someone, somewhere is going to ask if their wildshaped aarakocra still maintains a flight speed... while in tortoise form.

[JoeJ]

I'm just going to note that using SA isn't always bad.

Because today, I saw someone ask if a tortle druid maintains the AC17 whilst in wildshape. I have NO DOUBT that someone, somewhere is going to ask if their wildshaped aarakocra still maintains a flight speed... while in tortoise form.

What's wrong with a flying tortoise? You could hold a torch in each leg hole and be Gamera.

[Arkhios]

Guys...

Devs and Designers posting their opinions in Twitter is not Sage Advice.

https://www.sageadvice.eu is not official sage advice source, it's just some people compiling tweets on a 3rd party website under label of Sage Advice.

THIS is Sage Advice: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice


...Rhedyn and the rest who seem to think otherwise, you do notice that those are on entirely different domains and entirely different websites, right?

[Finback]

What's wrong with a flying tortoise? You could hold a torch in each leg hole and be Gamera.

I feel personally attacked, because I may or may not have once made a kaiju snapping turtle that could fly and expel flame breath.

[Bundin]

If looking at Sage Advice is somehow bad because one might have less fun because some 'more official' ruling would be taken into account, then the same goes for all source books, campaign books, UA, and anything else that is published or written by anyone else than the DM/players at the table. After all, those are rules by someone else that may or may not be followed. SA, like anything in the source books, is nothing more than a suggestion for a DM. This makes SA not better or worse than any other source.

I wondered if I was allowed to declare targets for EB beams one by one, or if I should declare targets for all of them in advance. The latter seemed more logical to me. SA told me that I can indeed target beam 2 after beam 1 resolves. I brought this info to the DM and waited for a ruling (he decided that I can do whatever makes sense to me, and resolving beams separately made more sense to him because other spells (flamey sorcerer thing) work the same way).

I'd not be surprised if the problem for many people isn't the fact that there is a SA pdf with additional rulings, but that the problem lies with specific rulings that they don't like.

[Rhedyn]

Guys...

Devs and Designers posting their opinions in Twitter is not Sage Advice.

https://www.sageadvice.eu is not official sage advice source, it's just some people compiling tweets on a 3rd party website under label of Sage Advice.

THIS is Sage Advice: http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/sage-advice


...Rhedyn and the rest who seem to think otherwise, you do notice that those are on entirely different domains and entirely different websites, right?
Hahaha no I am very much aware of where Wizards puts SA (I have actually never seen the .eu website, who goes to a random fan website to find SA?). The latter is just compilation of the tweets after an editor looked them over (with some tweets disregarded).

Picking through a large pile of garbage and making a smaller pile of garbage doesn't mean that pile of garbage isn't basically the same thing. Calling SA tweets is intentionally derogatory.

[Arkhios]

Hahaha no I am very much aware of where Wizards puts SA (I have actually never seen the .eu website, who goes to a random fan website to find SA?). The latter is just compilation of the tweets after an editor looked them over (with some tweets disregarded).

Picking through a large pile of garbage and making a smaller pile of garbage doesn't mean that pile of garbage isn't basically the same thing. Calling SA tweets is intentionally derogatory.

So, basically you're saying that you think you know the game better than the people who are actively involved in actual design and development of the very same game?

That's the impression I'm getting from the point you're trying to prove.

They are still people, like you and I. People make mistakes. It's not bad or wrong to admit it. It's being honest. That's why they have every right to correct or clarify the rules in the form of Sage Advice. The important thing about this is, as you said it, picking through a pile and making a smaller pile. Not everything they've said elsewhere makes it into Sage Advice Compendium, and probably for a good reason. Whatever the reason is, I'm pretty sure it's NOT decided by a whim of one person alone.

[Unoriginal]

So, basically you're saying that you think you know the game better than the people who are actively involved in actual design and development of the very same game?

That's the impression I'm getting from the point you're trying to prove.

The point that Rhedyn is trying to prove is his opinion than 5e as a whole is garbage. Or at least that the fundamental parts it's built on are, and that the rest isn't worth the hassle.

I'm not being inflammatory here, just providing context. Rhedyn has expressed his opinion at length in the past, and it helps to know where he's coming from in the present argument.

[n00b]

The point that Rhedyn is trying to prove is his opinion than 5e as a whole is garbage. Or at least that the fundamental parts it's built on are, and that the rest isn't worth the hassle.

I'm not being inflammatory here, just providing context. Rhedyn has expressed his opinion at length in the past, and it helps to know where he's coming from in the present argument.

So I guess I'm wondering why he thinks his opinion should hold weight over those of us at our table. For our table that he's not involved in?

[Rhedyn]

The point that Rhedyn is trying to prove is his opinion than 5e as a whole is garbage. Or at least that the fundamental parts it's built on are, and that the rest isn't worth the hassle.

I'm not being inflammatory here, just providing context. Rhedyn has expressed his opinion at length in the past, and it helps to know where he's coming from in the present argument.
Oh I've softened a bit on that. I may not like it, but I will admit that 5e has great thematic strength in it's rules and the game is not completely unworkable to make "challenging fun encounters" if you follow the encounter pacing guidelines and make custom monsters for high levels (or use 3rd party).

That being said, that thematic strength of 5e comes from the DM being able to run 5e as their favorite version of D&D or how they think D&D is suppose to be ran.

Sage Advice completely undermines the intentional and important vagueness in much of rules and coalesces 5e D&D to the version Jeremy Crawford envisions, which is a much narrower and less useful game. (it's also full of just bad or obvious rulings, which is a separate issue)


So I guess I'm wondering why he thinks his opinion should hold weight over those of us at our table. For our table that he's not involved in?
Hey if you want to worsen your table with Sage Advice, don't mind me. My axe to grind is with SA not your personal enjoyment of 5e D&D. If it was, I would be saying Sage Advice was official RAW and not using it is house-rules because I would want you to have a worse time with D&D 5e.

[KorvinStarmast]

Hey if you want to worsen your table with Sage Advice, don't mind me. Nice job illustrating Unoriginal's point.

Back to the discussion on SA:
Crawford stated, back in January of 2016 (see my answer to this question (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/q/140221/22566)) that sometimes after he tweets a rules answer he realizes that the tweet wasn't a very good answer. (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/rules-answers-january-2016) So he revises that answer before he puts it into SA.

SA is a useful resource. Use it where it helps your table, don't bother with it where it doesn't.

Advice to the DM: Make a ruling, and play on!

[djreynolds]

The advice is great on sage advice. It allows a 3rd party, not at the table, to mediate, to answer or clarify rulings.

Once everyone at the table is in agreement, they can move on and play.

Many of the questions at your table, have already been asked at another table.

IMO, it's okay to at least look at previous questions, because now you have an answer from one of the actual designers.

[MrStabby]

Sage advice is where everything gets dumped prior to going into errata. If, after due consideration WotC considers that what is said on Twitter should be preserved as part of the body of rules then it gets added to errata. If WotC concludes that it is wrong or inappropriate to add this to the rules then it is omitted from the next errata.


The quality of sage advice is generally poor. Not as an attack on the writers but because 240 characters is not enough space to explain or add nuance. Looking past the usual forum rage and hyperbole, I find GitP to be a better place to go. The debate and the ability to justify choices helps me to see not just the outcomes or potential abuses of a specific ruling but also what fits my needs at my table.

Sage advice has caused more problems than it has solved for me. As a DM I am trying to balance fun for a whole group of players. When one player objects to a ruling, not on the basis of "realism" or fun but on the basis of some guy on Twitter disagreeing with it it can cause friction. That ruling is made without knowledge of my campaign or the interests of my table or anything else. Of course if I hadn't communicated rulings, where forseably controversial, to a player in good time then this is on me...

I feel I need the trust of players to DM and this back-seat driving by sage advice undermines that. In return I feel I owe it to my players to be open to other rulings, either being challenged after the session or by reading what others write. Either way the input I get needs to be better than 240 characters from someone who doesn't know the circumstances at our table.