D&D (2024) Sage Advice Compendium Updated To 2024

The latest Sage Advice Compendium updates provide official rules clarifications for D&D 2024. Sage Advice is not errata, but acts more like a FAQ for common rules queries.

The Sage Advice Compendium collects questions and answers about rules interactions in Dungeons & Dragons. With the release of the new Core Rulebooks, Sage Advice has been updated to encompass the new material presented in these books. It will continue to be updated as more questions are brought up by the community.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

Has the original SA Compendium been removed from the D&D Website???

Looks like the old Errata docs have also been converted from downloaded PDFs to dndbeyond webpages only.

 

[GPyromania]

Has the original SA Compendium been removed from the D&D Website???

Looks like the old Errata docs have also been converted from downloaded PDFs to dndbeyond webpages only.

Nope - you can still find it on the sources page, or the direct link here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/sac/sage-advice-compendium

 

[UngeheuerLich]

It has been edited to the new rules

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/sae/sage-advice-compendium#FeatGreatWeaponFighting

Thanks. But I will still ignore it. Having calculated it through, allowing it to work on all extra dice actually makes it a decent choice. On par with duelling.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm confused
It would require a change to alter the way things are now.

Oh, sorry, I had meant it wouldn’t have required a change from the way it worked in 2014. So the fact that it changed to no longer work that way in 2024 is weird.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

Nope - you can still find it on the sources page, or the direct link here: https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/sac/sage-advice-compendium

Thank you, glad its still up.

 

[Blue]

In reality, using two different bonus action abilities on a turn isn't game breaking by any stretch. The only examples I've seen where it could be an issue is using the same bonus action in a turn, such as for Spiritual Weapon.

Have to disagree, it's definitely game breaking. Action economy is king in 5e, 2014 or 2024. It's why solo-combats-without-legendary-actions are so weak.

A character being able TWF and do another bonus action is pretty strong. Don't lose an attack to put on or change your Hunter's Mark. Or look at some subclasses that grant a variety of things to do with bonus actions that don't have any other restrictions like uses per day. A rogue being able to disengage and hide every turn is powerful. Or even just TWF when missing with their main hand attack so they can deliver sneak attack, and still getting more bonus actions is strong. Plus a good number of magic items use bonus actions. Start your Flamebrand the same round you rage.

Allowing multiple bonus actions per turn is a serious power up for some characters, while others wouldn't be able to take advantage of it. So not only is it power creep, but it also unbalances characters by granting some more power and not others.

 

[Shiroiken]

Have to disagree, it's definitely game breaking. Action economy is king in 5e, 2014 or 2024. It's why solo-combats-without-legendary-actions are so weak.

A character being able TWF and do another bonus action is pretty strong. Don't lose an attack to put on or change your Hunter's Mark. Or look at some subclasses that grant a variety of things to do with bonus actions that don't have any other restrictions like uses per day. A rogue being able to disengage and hide every turn is powerful. Or even just TWF when missing with their main hand attack so they can deliver sneak attack, and still getting more bonus actions is strong. Plus a good number of magic items use bonus actions. Start your Flamebrand the same round you rage.

Allowing multiple bonus actions per turn is a serious power up for some characters, while others wouldn't be able to take advantage of it. So not only is it power creep, but it also unbalances characters by granting some more power and not others.

You misunderstand. The original reference was using your Action to take an additional Bonus Action. In general, Bonus Actions are less useful than Actions, so giving up an Action to take a second Bonus Action is not particularly game breaking. Every example I've seen where it breaks the game involves taking the same BA twice in a row.

 

[Minigiant]

You misunderstand. The original reference was using your Action to take an additional Bonus Action. In general, Bonus Actions are less useful than Actions, so giving up an Action to take a second Bonus Action is not particularly game breaking. Every example I've seen where it breaks the game involves taking the same BA twice in a row.

I think again the point is not that any idea think of was broken it was that bonus action features were never designed with a full cap of their power other than the fact that you can only use them once.

So if a designer or DM allowed a special thing as a bonus action and they allowed you to trade your action for a bonus action that very powerful ability they only expect you to be able to do once per turn... You can now do twice per turn.

For example if some DM created a ring that lets you banish a demon once per turn as a bonus action they could design an encounter with the assumption that you'd be able to only banish one demon per turn and thus have enough demons to make it a challenge.

But now you can banish two demons a turn.

Which now makes the encounter extremely easy if the player locks themselves into a boring loop of just vanishing demons taking all of their agency out of the fight where originally they would have their action to still do things.

But if you keep the same amount of demons the demons don't last as long.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I'm tempted to bring back a one-time house rule idea I had for humans -- an additional Background rather than Skillful and Versatile.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/sae/sage-advice-compendium#SAC-BG1

Way back in the playtests leading up to the 2014 PHB, I was arguing for this as the defining feature of Rogues -- instead of extra skills. (It would be different now that there are feats and no feature.)

 

[Shiroiken]

I think again the point is not that any idea think of was broken it was that bonus action features were never designed with a full cap of their power other than the fact that you can only use them once.

So if a designer or DM allowed a special thing as a bonus action and they allowed you to trade your action for a bonus action that very powerful ability they only expect you to be able to do once per turn... You can now do twice per turn.

For example if some DM created a ring that lets you banish a demon once per turn as a bonus action they could design an encounter with the assumption that you'd be able to only banish one demon per turn and thus have enough demons to make it a challenge.

But now you can banish two demons a turn.

Which now makes the encounter extremely easy if the player locks themselves into a boring loop of just vanishing demons taking all of their agency out of the fight where originally they would have their action to still do things.

But if you keep the same amount of demons the demons don't last as long.

You kinda proved my point. Every example I've seen that's game breaking involves using the same bonus action twice in a turn. To use your example, would it be game breaking to banish a demon and cast Healing Word or Spiritual Weapon? Not really. If you limit it to different actions, it only becomes an issue if you have two bonus actions that are both the equivalent to a regular action, and those are pretty rare.