D&D 5E Dragon+: Q&A with Jeremy Crawford, 10/30/18

[Sacrosanct]

The new rule is going to be written into the Player's Handbook. That is the entire point of the objection.

As long as they are confined to Sage Advice and his Twitter feed, Crawford's inconsistent rulings and bizarre interpretations are just a source of comedy. As a DM, I can simply say, "Nothing Crawford says carries any weight," and that's the end of it.

But I can't say "Nothing in the Player's Handbook carries any weight." My group is looking to add 1-2 new players next year. If those players show up with PHBs that contain rules changes, I now have to make a ruling on which PHB applies. I do not appreciate having to keep track of that kind of thing. The DM has enough work to do as it is.

True, but the original way he was doing things was a house rule that didn't follow the player's handbook anyway. So....

 

[The Crimson Binome]

You're missing the complaint:

The difference is, that before it was a perfectly reasonable interpretation for a DM to say the animal behaves as other creatures in general.

Now, ONLY dodge is allowed.

Effectively, what the change really says is:
no longer can animal companions choose to attack, or run away, or howl at the moon, or whatever. It's dodge or nothin'
This is the criticism. This is what feels clumsy and intrusive. It's presented as a step forward but it really is a step backward.

Do you see it now?

It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that "it doesn’t take an action unless you command it to" could mean "it does whatever the animal would normally do, like maybe attack or something". It's much less of a stretch to say that "it doesn’t take an action unless you command it to" could mean "it just stands there and defends itself".

If the DM wanted the animal to behave naturally, then they were already arguing against more basic interpretations of the rules in order to get there. If the rules clarify that an un-commanded animal takes the Dodge action, then a DM can still countermand that by having them act normally, but DMs who are less inclined to improvise will have something to fall back on.

As the rules currently stand, it would take a progressive DM to let the animal act naturally; and a by-the-book DM would either have the animal do nothing or Dodge, depending on various factors. This clarification would help the by-the-book DM to be more consistent, without second-guessing whether or not they're going too easy on the players.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't understand what you mean?

If you want to interpret this as the Ranger or his companion keeping the choice of remaining unmagical, sure, go ahead... but what good does that do you?

I thought there was a trade-off involved, like maybe give up Exceptional Training. If a magical natural attack was only presented as an alternative to an existing class feature, then it wouldn't constitute a change to how the existing class feature worked, in much the same way that introducing a 2d4 broadsword would not constitute a change to the existing 1d8 longsword.

 

[5ekyu]

It's a bit of a stretch to suggest that "it doesn’t take an action unless you command it to" could mean "it does whatever the animal would normally do, like maybe attack or something". It's much less of a stretch to say that "it doesn’t take an action unless you command it to" could mean "it just stands there and defends itself".

If the DM wanted the animal to behave naturally, then they were already arguing against more basic interpretations of the rules in order to get there. If the rules clarify that an un-commanded animal takes the Dodge action, then a DM can still countermand that by having them act normally, but DMs who are less inclined to improvise will have something to fall back on.

As the rules currently stand, it would take a progressive DM to let the animal act naturally; and a by-the-book DM would either have the animal do nothing or Dodge, depending on various factors. This clarification would help the by-the-book DM to be more consistent, without second-guessing whether or not they're going too easy on the players.

Given that the PHb and DMg pretty much leave it as truth that the Gm, controls NPCs as the default rule, I am comfortable enough with that as a basis to say that to me it makes sense that the paragraph starts with statements about commanding the beast, ends with the same and so the context of that sentence is how you can command the beast.

So, with that context in mind, add to it the GM controls NPCs, and note one more thing... the rule says it wont take "an action" unless commanded. That is *not* the same thing as wont take "any actions" given the context of how the ranger commands the beast to take specific actions.

Yes, this is choosing to aaply context to a sentence buried between sentences where the context of commanding the beast is clear and it is intended to be consistent with the more broader rule for GM controls NPCs and so on... but to me it feels very sensible as far as "RAW" due to the "an action" vs "any actions at all" context.

Which makes more sense even from the reading of the rules - the creature stands there de facto incapacitated - taking no actions at all - or the creatures responds as a creature would *unless* you command it using that paragraph?

That would have been better clarified... but to me "clarifying" that it can only take dodge is a step back - a step away from that.

of course, perhaps the answer is a ranger just commanding his beast to "do what you want until i ask for specific choices."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Given that the PHb and DMg pretty much leave it as truth that the Gm, controls NPCs as the default rule, I am comfortable enough with that as a basis to say that to me it makes sense that the paragraph starts with statements about commanding the beast, ends with the same and so the context of that sentence is how you can command the beast.

Okay, so you're saying that the beast isn't always in a state of being commanded, and is otherwise an NPC. I could buy that, even though it goes against my own interpretation.

In that case, though, whether or not the new "Dodge only" provision transcends the state of being not-commanded should depend entirely on the exact phrasing. Without actually seeing the words on the page, it seems likely that you can interpret the new rule as part of the command rules, and have it act naturally aside from that.

Which makes more sense even from the reading of the rules - the creature stands there de facto incapacitated - taking no actions at all - or the creatures responds as a creature would *unless* you command it using that paragraph?

My own experience with well-trained wolves in fantasy settings is that they definitely won't bite anything unless they are commanded to, or are specifically trained to always attack something that is attacking their handler. Being well-trained means their training doesn't shut off when you stop actively directing it. There's no risk of them choosing to bite something, of their own volition, which is the only reason they're ever allowed in town.

 

[ccs]

Well, he's about 4 years late on the subject.
In the groups I play with we solved the problem ourselves about two weeks into playing.

 

[Jester David]

Well, he's about 4 years late on the subject.
In the groups I play with we solved the problem ourselves about two weeks into playing.

Question: if it’s that quick and easy then solve then why did they have to do anything?

 

[DEFCON 1]

Question: if it’s that quick and easy then solve then why did they have to do anything?

The answer was probably 'nothing', but I bet they kept getting people bitching at thrm for years about it and they finally gave in just to shut them up.

 

[MechaTarrasque]

I was wondering if someone could direct me to the page on the PHB or the DMG where you can buy a mastiff that will suicidally attack an ancient red dragon just because you bought it? I am pretty sure I can find the page that lets you buy a mastiff that will whimper and run away when it get in the fear aura, but all this talk about how you can just buy a dog and it is just as good as the AC makes me think I missed something.

Although if it runs away, at least there is a good chance you don't have to buy another mastiff......

 

[Jester David]

The answer was probably 'nothing', but I bet they kept getting people bitching at thrm for years about it and they finally gave in just to shut them up.

Well, they did something.
Have people shut up about it?