D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[Lanefan]

It is written that way in the DMG. It's on page 200.

While holding this shield, you have a bonus to AC determined by the shield's rarity. This bonus is in addition to the shield's normal bonus to AC.

Holding means holding, not wearing or wielding or equipped, and the description reads "holding".

This is a RAW answer. Crawford is just reading the book back to us. That doesn't mean that we should play this way, but if you want to understand what the book literally says then there you go.

All that tells me is that the game has bound itself to what is, in effect, a typo: 'holding' instead of 'using'.

Rules lawyers rejoice!

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

What does my table have to do with RAW?

Sorry. Table as in group: Your DM and fellow players.

 

[Lanefan]

It is movement the rules.

Also the definition of 'moving' is: change of place or position or posture

How does one teleport somewhere without moving there?

If one follows this logic to its conclusion it would become illegal to teleport through walls or obstructions, as such things are specifically called out as blocking movement.

If one sees teleport as near-light-speed Flash-like travel from one place to another, where the traveller does in fact physically pass through the intervening space, then movement rules would apply. All of them. And this would hose teleport considerably.

But if one sees teleport as working more like a Star Trek transporter beam, where you vanish from one point and appear (or rematerialize) somewhere else, then the traveller isn't interacting with the intervening space at all and thus no movement rules would apply.

Can't have it both ways.

 

[Flamestrike]

If one follows this logic to its conclusion it would become illegal to teleport through walls or obstructions, as such things are specifically called out as blocking movement.

And specific beats general in that Teleport expressly lets you move through walls or obstructions.

 

[Helldritch]

And specific beats general in that Teleport expressly lets you move through walls or obstructions.

Not always. Misty step is a teleport and you need to see your arrival point.
Teleportation is not movement. It is a displacement of matter from one place to an other. All this without actually moving. At least, that is how teleportation has been viewed from the beginning of scify and in quantum physics...

Any movement away from someone should trigger an OA but not teleportation as it is not moving. You are simply in one place then in an other in the blink of an eye. As @Lanefan said, you can't have it both ways. Teleportation is not moving.
I'd like you to reread (or read) Dune. Read carefully the mentra of teleporation that the Mentat is reciting. I move without moving. That is teleportation. Movement, without movement. Just like undeath is life without life. It is paradoxical, but so is a lot of things in both litterature and in real life (especially quantum physics... Shroedinger's cat ring a bell?)

 

[Helldritch]

In a rather perverse manner, I love it when a thread I start arrives at the point when I no longer care to follow it. There is a sort of grim satisfaction there...

Enjoy, folks! I had to use my Action to write this post, so time for my bonus action to Misty Step and then move to get even farther away!

I counter that. Stay here boy and finish what you started! And don't you dare counter back!

 

[MikalC]

I've believed since the beginning that Jeremy intentionally makes the occasional bad rule take just to condition people to STOP worrying so gosh-darned much about trying to make the entire rule system water-tight. Despite the thousands of times he keeps telling people "Take what you have and make your own choices at the table that make sense for your group"... people still constantly hound him for answers about what is "right" because they can't stand the thought of making their own decisions about the rules.

So he puts things in Sage Advice that could make sense from a certain point of view, but which most people would consider ridiculous on their face. Mainly just to get people to stop listening to him as the be-all-and-end-all of rules questions and just inspire them to decide the correct interpretation on their own.

I came to this conclusion back in 2015 when the whole "Barkskin" rule debacle happened, and haven't bothered worrying about or using the Errata or Sage Advice documents since.

if that was actually the case he’s a terrible developer. The point of development of a game is to make it run well.

throwing stupid rules into the mix on purpose is literally the opposite of that

 

[Don Durito]

It's a strange idea.

If you don't wan't people to ask legalistic questions about rules interpretations, then don't answer them. Or say "Ask your DM", or "It's your game, up to you". That would seem a clear idea to help people to get the point.

 

[Wasteland Knight]

So the thread on interrupting rests encouraged me to finally look over the SA-compendium and I found something that is simple idiotic IMO:

View attachment 127011
So, now your PCs who are not even proficient in Shields can pick up a +1 shield and just "hold it" in their hand and get a +1 AC bonus? Now spellcasters are going to be vying for that very rare +3 shield.

I'm (not) sorry, but this has got to be one of the dumbest sage advice responses I have ever seen.

I am still looking over the rest of it, and will add more if I find any other [NEW] SA I find crazy, silly, or just plain stupid.

Anyone else have a SA ruling they just can't get on board with?

This is a terrible ruling.

 

[Maxperson]

if that was actually the case he’s a terrible developer. The point of development of a game is to make it run well.

throwing stupid rules into the mix on purpose is literally the opposite of that

I don't know if he does that with D&D, but it is part of the WotC philosophy. They've admitted to making crappy MTG cards in order to make the good cards stand out. If all the cards were good, then good becomes average.