Official D&D Sage Advice Compendium Updated

Hriston · Mar 15, 2019

Asgorath said:
So the fact that this earlier Sage Advice Compendium answer uses the word "intent" overrides the fact that JEC has come out and said "these previous rulings were bad, and here are the reasons why" in your opinion? You don't mind that the old rulings are illogical and ignore the way reactions work, and were thus inconsistent with the rest of the rules?

Okay, I feel like you're just trolling me now. I wrote a clear response to your last post, and instead of addressing anything I said in it, you're asking me these loaded questions. You have yet to prove that Jeremy Crawford has said anything about his original ruling on War Magic other than to revise his ruling. I've already addressed your bizarre idea that this is just about using the word intent, when clearly it's about the substance of what's being said. And I disagree that the older rulings are illogical, ignore the way reactions work, and are inconsistent. None of that is true.

epithet · Mar 15, 2019

Maxperson said:
It's no more or less advice than any other rule in the book. All the books are entirely advice from cover to cover. And here's the thing. He's the lead designer for the company that owns the game. If he says the Sage Advice Compendium consists of rules, then they are rules whether you like or not, or agree with it or not. He's the one that gets to decide that. Not you.

Personally, I'm not going to be giving the Sage Advice Compendium more weight than I would give any other rule in the books, which is to say that they are very easily mutable into what I and my players desire for the game. And yes, I can in fact change his Sage Advice just as easily as I would any other rule. He made them rules, so they are now mine to change.

Jeremy Crawford never at any point describes the Sage Advice as "rules." The articles and the pdf consist of "rulings," and no--you can't change his advice. You can ignore it, follow it, or print it to line your cat's litter box, but it remains his advice. Whether you use it in your game or not, it is his advice. The rules, on the other hand, you can change. Not the source material (you can't change the Player's Handbook) but certainly the rules in your game are subject to DM fiat. You can't really play the game contrary to the rules, because by deciding to play the game that way you are changing the rules as they apply to your game. You absolutely can play the game in a way that is contrary to Jeremy's advice, because the way your group decides to play the game doesn't change that at all.

epithet · Mar 15, 2019

5ekyu said:
What?

I can as GM decide to change how a tuleceorks or if I use it for my game. That doesn't ever change them in the book or anyone else game.

I can do the same as that with Sage Advice rulings. It doesn't change that SAC doc or what JEC or anyone else does.

So, in both cases, I cannot change the source but I can change what I use and how it works in my gsme.

But, if somehow you see house rules actually changing sources, nothing more to say.

No, you are misunderstanding.

Your group can decide to change the rules of the game. For example, you can adopt a house rule that only Tiefling characters can be Bladesingers. You have then changed the rules of the game you are playing.

Your group can ignore Jeremy's Sage Advice. You can, for example, say that while an elf character only needs 4 hours of trance instead of sleeping it still needs 8 hours to complete the long rest, because that's what you think the rules say and your group is following the published rules as you understand them. That's fine, but you haven't changed the Sage Advice--Jeremy is still suggesting that a meditating elf only needs 4 hours to complete a long rest, even if your group follows a different ruling.

You can change a rule, you can make your own ruling, but you can't change Jeremy's ruling. Get it?

Asgorath · Mar 15, 2019

Hriston said:
Okay, I feel like you're just trolling me now. I wrote a clear response to your last post, and instead of addressing anything I said in it, you're asking me these loaded questions. You have yet to prove that Jeremy Crawford has said anything about his original ruling on War Magic other than to revise his ruling. I've already addressed your bizarre idea that this is just about using the word intent, when clearly it's about the substance of what's being said. And I disagree that the older rulings are illogical, ignore the way reactions work, and are inconsistent. None of that is true.

Fair enough, we can just agree to disagree. I've never said that the intent of War Magic has changed, and the latest Sage Advice Compendium confirms a difference between RAW and RAI for that feature. War Magic is not Shield Master, and JEC has gone out of his way to make that clear, which is why I disagree with your assessment that you can apply the intent for War Magic to all bonus actions with conditions. I'm not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change my mind, so let's just leave it at that.

Hriston · Mar 15, 2019

Asgorath said:
Fair enough, we can just agree to disagree. I've never said that the intent of War Magic has changed, and the latest Sage Advice Compendium confirms a difference between RAW and RAI for that feature. War Magic is not Shield Master, and JEC has gone out of his way to make that clear, which is why I disagree with your assessment that you can apply the intent for War Magic to all bonus actions with conditions.

I know that War Magic is not Shield Master, but what do you mean that JC went out of his way to draw a clear distinction between them? I seem to have missed that. On the contrary, the fact that he revised his ruling on War Magic and then applied that revised ruling to Shield Master’s bonus action shove suggests to me that he associates them, as does the similarity in language I pointed out.

Asgorath said:
I'm not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change my mind, so let's just leave it at that.

Fair enough. Happy Gaming!

5ekyu · Mar 15, 2019

epithet said:
No, you are misunderstanding.

Your group can decide to change the rules of the game. For example, you can adopt a house rule that only Tiefling characters can be Bladesingers. You have then changed the rules of the game you are playing.

Your group can ignore Jeremy's Sage Advice. You can, for example, say that while an elf character only needs 4 hours of trance instead of sleeping it still needs 8 hours to complete the long rest, because that's what you think the rules say and your group is following the published rules as you understand them. That's fine, but you haven't changed the Sage Advice--Jeremy is still suggesting that a meditating elf only needs 4 hours to complete a long rest, even if your group follows a different ruling.

You can change a rule, you can make your own ruling, but you can't change Jeremy's ruling. Get it?

"You can change a rule, you can make your own ruling, but you can't change Jeremy's ruling. Get it?"

Rule in PHB
I can do the following and more
Use it as us.
Ignore it.
House rule different for my game.
I cannot change the rule as it is presented in the PHB

Official Ruling SAC
I can do the following (and more)
Use it as us.
Ignore it.
House rule different for my game.
I cannot change the official ruling as it is presented in the SAC

That same list can apply to JEC tweets, Mearls tweets, stray tweets from a man called Jayne on the interwebs...

So, no, i do not see whatever difference you are trying to highlight between the PHB and the errata and the SAC.

But thats fine.

Mistwell · Mar 15, 2019

CapnZapp said:
The thread that refuses to die. I'm all for a good old rules discussion, but this subject? Since it has absolutely zero actual game impact and since Crawford is best ignored completely, I am absolutely fascinated THIS is the subject you choose for your WWI-style trench warfare. Cheers

See what you people did? You made me agree with CapnZapp wholeheartedly.

Shame on all of you. Shame!

Azzy · Mar 15, 2019

Asgorath said:
I'm not going to change your mind, and you aren't going to change my mind, so let's just leave it at that.

I realized that no minds would be changed at least 800 posts ago. I'm glad you guys are finally at the point of realizing it. To quote Neon Genesis Evangellion, "Congratulations!".

FrogReaver · Mar 16, 2019

Azzy said:
I realized that no minds would be changed at least 800 posts ago. I'm glad you guys are finally at the point of realizing it. To quote Neon Genesis Evangellion, "Congratulations!".

Yet my mind was changed twice. So...