D&D 5E JC Tweets: How Close to official rulings do you consider them to be?

Mistwell said:

It's certainly at least as valid as "They are no closer to official than something a bum off the street could say," which was a pretty snarky spin you put on the poll to begin with. You set that tone, don't complain that others match it.

Click to expand...

FrogReaver said:

2. It should have been obvious that you are always free to ignore an official ruling in play.

Click to expand...

Bacon Bits said:

I only really seek them if there's confusion at the table that the table can't resolve it or there's still some doubt. Honestly, I can't think of anything I've relied on it for, particularly once multiple rulings had been published that everybody at the table agree was stupid. I've played long enough that I don't need some guy to interpret RAW for me, even if he's one of the guys that wrote the book.

Additionally, the OP left off the very next paragraph:



That provides a fairly meaningful bit of context.

Click to expand...

Satyrn said:

By the way, this is at the heart of I think the phrase is terrible. For starters, rulings are what happens during play. Period. Sage Advice is providing a clarification of what the rules say. And if it can be ignored, if it doesn't actually apply, it's not official. Adventurers League can make official rules and the DMs and players are supposed to follow them.


For example:

1) By the official rules, the Saints should be playing in the Superbowl. But a ruling during the game changed that. It was a terrible ruling that pissed off a lot of people.

2) By the official rules, that Chiefs player was offside. The ruling during play was that his penalty cancelled the play that would have knocked out the Patriots. It was a good ruling that pissed off a lot of people.

WotC makes rules. The DM makes rulings.

And neither of them actually declare anything official because WotC ain't organizing my game, and I ain't pompous enough to describe what I do as "official."

Click to expand...

Satyrn said:

For example:

1) By the official rules, the Saints should be playing in the Superbowl. But a ruling during the game changed that. It was a terrible ruling that pissed off a lot of people.

2) By the official rules, that Chiefs player was offside. The ruling during play was that his penalty cancelled the play that would have knocked out the Patriots. It was a good ruling that pissed off a lot of people.

Click to expand...

FrogReaver said:

Curious, what do you think we should call Wotc's collection of rulings if not official rulings?

Click to expand...

Satyrn said:

As Yunru said, Clarifications. "WotC's clarifications" probably so that the source is clear.

Or "WotC's rule clarifications" if you're looking to be wordy.

Click to expand...

FrogReaver said:

I see. So then would you agree that in absence of a wotc rule clarification in sage advice on something that what JC tweets about it is the next best clarification we have?

Click to expand...

FrogReaver said:

The sage advice is clear that twitter rulings are not official. However, in the absence of an official stance in sage advice I think that the lead rules designers rulings are the closest thing we have to official. So while, they aren't official, in absence of an official ruling they are still the closest thing to official we have and so they are what I'm going to consider the defacto official ruling until an actual official ruling is given in sage advice.

Click to expand...