Jeremy Crawford's New Sage Advice Column

I look forward to next month Sage Advice! I like the fact that Jeremy acknowledge RAW, RAI & RAF as different method of rules interpretations. I hope he address every rules question from those 3 angles. For exemple;

Can a rogue use Sneak Attack with a handaxe?

RAW: No, the handaxe is not a finesse or ranged weapon.
RAI: That was not an intended weapon to be used by rogue to make sneak attack.
RAF: Sure, why not! The damage is comparable to the shortsword anyway so it shouldn't break anything.

Click to expand...

Dausuul said:

If he comes back with that answer, then I and a lot of other folks will be rightly annoyed. The designers are being paid out of our pockets--all that money we spend on rulebooks--and we don't pay them to play Zen master. We pay them because they have the time and the expertise to design a better system than we could build for ourselves.

If the rules are going to leave a certain decision up to the DM, then they should be up front about it: "This is up to the DM to decide." Otherwise, they should be clear and straightforward. As the stealth rules exist right now, it's quite easy for a player to read them and conclude one thing, while the DM concludes something else, and neither of us knows that the other one has different ideas (because we don't spend a month going over the entire rulebook together line by line). Then someone tries to use Stealth at the table, and the session crashes to a halt. As DM, I make a ruling on the fly, and explain it so my players understand how it works, and then I have to come back after the session and review the ruling to be sure it's how I want things to work in future, and explain that to my players, and it's a waste of all of our time.

I am perfectly prepared to adjust the rules if they don't serve the needs of my table. But I want to know what the rules are, so I know if I have to inform my players that they're being adjusted.

Click to expand...

Prepare to be annoyed. They've already stated that there is no RAI for stealth, for the previous reasons mentioned. How many other rules are this way are this way, I don't know. They've been very straightforward on that front, so be ready.

5E is VERY rules light, by design. DM making rulings on the fly is also by design. You are not adjusting the rules, as the rules are only what you (the DM) say they are.

I for one am glad to keep the rules for DM interpretation.

I didn't know Big Tom Callahan was a wizard.
View attachment 66900

Curmudjinn said:

I didn't know Big Tom Callahan was a wizard.
View attachment 66900View attachment 66901

Click to expand...

Where did that picture come from? I don't see it when I look at the article.

Cool article, and a nice introduction to the series.

I liked what was there, but honestly, didn't see a whole lot there. Like the the "Behind the Screen" article, I believe the first one is there as more of a primer so-to-speak, to whet our appetites and set the tone for future articles.

So between those two colums, and Unearthed Arcana, I think there will be "more to chew on" for those clamoring for new stuff, and by using monthly articles, those bites will be easily digestible for those new to the game, or those trying catch up with everything.

My biggest issue here, is that WoTC REALY, REALLY needs to make their website easier to navigate. I visit the site regularly, and still I am unaware of new articles and things until I read about them on here. Something is wrong with that picture IMO.

The way the articles and news are presented now is VERY confusing IMO. Everything feels mixed together, and it's not learly labeled as a regular article vs a one off "press release/latest news/seasonal info" article or whatever. That makes me avoid the articles altogether. I don't want to sift trhough a bunch of possibly outdated articles to maybe try to find something cool/interesting to read..but I digress...

Shiroiken said:

Prepare to be annoyed. They've already stated that there is no RAI for stealth...

Click to expand...

Citation please. To the best of my knowledge, they have said no such thing. They have said that there are certain areas in the Stealth rules which are intentionally left to DM judgement. And it's true: The Stealth rules have certain areas that are explicitly left to DM judgement, like deciding when a creature is "distracted" and you can sneak up behind it.

This is a perfectly good solution to a thorny problem, and I have no objection to it. What I have a problem with is the rest of the Stealth rules, which are written in a way that suggests they are meant to be taken as rules, but it's not clear what the rules are.

I mean, come on. If there was no intent in that sidebar, why the heck is it there at all? It took somebody a fair bit of time to write. It takes up a good chunk of a page in the PHB, where space was at a premium by all accounts. Why did they not simply say, "Your DM decides when you can use Stealth and how it interacts with Perception," and leave it at that? If that whole sidebar is just blather and we're supposed to make something up, then they were deliberately confusing their customers, because... what?

I am fairly certain they did in fact have an intended rule there. They just didn't explain it clearly. Which, okay, I get it, they had a lot to do and not a lot of people to do it with, and that section just slipped past. No biggie; they can just tell us how they meant for it to work, and clarify it in the next printing of the PHB.

Paraxis said:

RAI is hand and hand with RAW and been around just as long, RAF I have never seen before and hope to not see again, it makes no sense. The intent behind the rules should be fun to begin with. Intent is hard enough to figure out unless it is something like Sage Advice where the designers are answering the questions, Fun is so subjective from person to person and group to group as be something no one could answer to the satisfaction of most people.

Click to expand...

Let me give an example I just saw today on ENWorld. There was discussion about plate mail as unintended treasure from a Hobgoblin leader being too generous for that level and that table. Reasonable. Several people suggested having costs to have it refitted for human - hey, that offsets it's value partially and brings it more in line with the intended amount of treasure. Sure, I can see that if the Dm is worried. One suggestion was since they were recommending 250 gold to refit, that it should also take 250 days. The RAW and even RAI could easily suggest 1gp per day for crafting, but RAF would say that having to wait 250 days to get the reward isn't sensical since the PC would have leveled far past that point in most campaigns.

That's one place I could see RAF as being useful - the times when it contradicts RAW and RAI, and does so to make a better time for the people at the table.

I am pretty happy with this (as well as Mearls') as a n opening article, an opening salvo. A couple thing stood out to me:

RAW, RAI, RAF: honestly, these are great terms set out and defined for the beginning. Great context for future articles, as well as demonstrating an awareness of the online community.

He also clarified the purpose of Sage Advice: clarification, jot redesign.

Obviously, kot substantial in terms of actual advice, but I appreciate the groundwork being laid.

This statement/opinion probably comes from lack of experience, so take it with a grain of salt.

I see a lot of people mentioning that 5E is too rules light. I don't really see it that way. In a nutshell, I kind of look at it like this.

The DM sets the stage, the players tell the DM what they want to do, the DM decides if they believe that their character coould do what the player wants. If they think there may be a chance for failure, then they have them roll a check of some sort and say what happens. If it's something off the wall that couldn't realistically be done, you say they are unable to do it. Otherwise, just say "You walk to the fountain and begin to drink the water" (or whatever the case may be).

From time to time there will be encounters and combat. For that, you follow the rules per the PHB and go back to the role play afterward.

Maybe I'm be ing overly simplistic with that train of thought, but with the way the rules are now, I can't imagine anything my players could come up with that I couldn't come up with a ruling for.

I LOVE the 5E rule set. As a new DM, it gives me the freedom to let my players do what they want, without things getting bogged down in too many "what if" type arguements.

I like to let my players do what they like, and will allow them to even break the rules of combat (such as letting them skip the ATK roll to see if they hit) if they have a great plan that seems like it would work, with no chance of failure/no chance to miss the attack.