D&D 5E Bad Sage Advice?

[ninjayeti]

Crawford is wrong so often they need to stop calling it "Sage" Advice....its just advice.

 

[Helldritch]

Crawford is wrong so often they need to stop calling it "Sage" Advice....its just advice.

And yet, a lot of people here refer to SA for rulings. Be it wrong or right does not matter. SA rules!!!!!
I have stopped looking SA a long time ago. In fact, only on this forum am I often prompted to check it...

 

[Oofta]

I use sage advice as just that, advice. Sometimes I use it sometimes I don't. Honestly, I don't pay that much attention to it any more.

My pet peeve one is the one @Helldritch mentioned with shield master. Seems inconsistent with how other prerequisites work like bonus spells and makes the feat virtually pointless as written.

I'm sure I could go through the entire thing and come up with several more head scratchers.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The point is for this (and other) bad rulings is they already intend to update the text in the DMG and other books in later printings--it is part of many of the new SA responses, so why not instead rule "Magical shields must be equipped for you to benefit from them." or something and then update the DMG in the next printing to "While you have this shield equipped, you have a bonus..."

No, instead JC decided to go with a poor, silly ruling which I think 90% or more tables would agree with IME. Never IME has a player been able to pick up a shield and get the magical bonus without needing to have the item used properly.

Honestly, sometimes it amazes me the people WotC keeps in their employ.

You’re...amazed that the guy who largely designed the most successful version of D&D ever is still employed there? Really?

Because he pointed out the correct RAW in a medium intended for doing exactly that?

Seems pretty unreasonable, to me. Not to mention that the ruling in question is absolutely the correct ruling RAW and a reasonable ruling RAI. It’s a magic shield. Why would the magic care of its properly equipped?

The only argument I can see against it is from a gamist perspective that it messes with gameplay somehow or is unfair to users of proper shields or whatever.

 

[Dausuul]

The ruling that turned me off SA permanently is that if someone dies and is transformed into an undead, and the undead is then destroyed and revivify cast on the remains... you bring back the undead. As an undead. Apparently this constitutes "returning to life."

 

[Helldritch]

I use sage advice as just that, advice. Sometimes I use it sometimes I don't. Honestly, I don't pay that much attention to it any more.

My pet peeve one is the one @Helldritch mentioned with shield master. Seems inconsistent with how other prerequisites work like bonus spells and makes the feat virtually pointless as written.

I'm sure I could go through the entire thing and come up with several more head scratchers.

As written the feat is pointless.
There are so many other SA that are either inconsistant, or simply bad ruling. But they're coming from WotC so they must be right.
A lot of SA simply do not make sense.

You’re...amazed that the guy who largely designed the most successful version of D&D ever is still employed there? Really?

Because he pointed out the correct RAW in a medium intended for doing exactly that?

Seems pretty unreasonable, to me. Not to mention that the ruling in question is absolutely the correct ruling RAW and a reasonable ruling RAI. It’s a magic shield. Why would the magic care of its properly equipped?

The only argument I can see against it is from a gamist perspective that it messes with gameplay somehow or is unfair to users of proper shields or whatever.

To equip and use something you must be proficient. By your logic (and the one of SA) any can now use Martial weapons, wands, staves and whatever. But no... it must be on your list... so taking a magic initiate feat should do the trick... bha...

The ruling that turned me off SA permanently is that if someone dies and is transformed into an undead, and the undead is then destroyed and revivify cast on the remains... you bring back the undead. As an undead. Apparently this constitutes "returning to life."

I would never do that. Undead are undead. They should not even be targetable by a raise spell. But that is at least consistent in what I always did. Once undead, you're character is done for. The terror of my player is facing a necromancer that will animate them into zombies or whatever and make sure they'll never get to life again. But this is at my table. Whatever suits yours...

 

[Dausuul]

I would never do that. Undead are undead. They should not even be targetable by a raise spell. But that is at least consistent in what I always did. Once undead, you're character is done for. The terror of my player is facing a necromancer that will animate them into zombies or whatever and make sure they'll never get to life again. But this is at my table. Whatever suits yours...

My own ruling is that any spell that says the target "returns to life" either returns the target to life, which undeath is certainly not, or else fails altogether. What it does not do is return the target to some other non-living state.

Like I said, this was the thing that turned me off SA for good. I regard Crawford's rulings as curiosities, sometimes providing useful insights, but certainly not carrying the status of actual rules.

 

[DND_Reborn]

You’re...amazed that the guy who largely designed the most successful version of D&D ever is still employed there? Really?

Frankly, yes, yes I am. You know he had a huge development team working with him on it, right?

Being a good leader, organizer, etc. is one thing-- Allowing strict "RAW" (which for the umpteenth time doesn't really exist in 5E) interpretation of the rules which leads to silly and comical game-play.

So, now my archmage with a Robe of the Archmagi can have an AC 15 + DEX + carry around a Shield +3 in his free hand, not to mention the Staff of Power he is holding in his other hand (another AC +2), for a AC of 20 + DEX + Shield every round using his reaction. Awesome--BA is straining under the weight of JC's illogical and crazy rulings.

I stand by what I said--he could have easily ruled in a better and more logical way:

[NEW] Can you gain the magical bonus of a +2 shield if you are holding the shield without taking an action to don it?
No. You must have the shield equipped to gain the magical bonus. The intent of a magical shield was it must be equipped, not simply held. Future printings of the Dungeon Master’s Guide will reflect that intent.

See, no muss, no fuss, simple and easy to do and avoids all sorts of stupid shenanigans.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

The point is for this (and other) bad rulings is they already intend to update the text in the DMG and other books in later printings

I think that I'm going to have to see a citation for this claim, particularly since you're leveraging personal attacks off it.

Sage advice is not errata. Sage advice is as literal interpretation of the rules as written as possible. As official rulings, they have to be. Not rules as intended. Not what the developer would rule in their game. Not. Errata.

--it is part of many of the new SA responses, so why not instead rule "Magical shields must be equipped for you to benefit from them." or something and then update the DMG in the next printing to "While you have this shield equipped, you have a bonus..."

They may well decide to errata the DMG in that way.
However, until they do, the rules say that you get the AC bonus when holding the shield, so the official reiteration of the rules has to say that as well.

No, instead JC decided to go with a poor, silly ruling which I think 90% or more tables would agree with IME. Never IME has a player been able to pick up a shield and get the magical bonus without needing to have the item used properly.

JC is required to explain what the rules say in the article that goes by what the rules say. If you want how he would rule at his table, Sage advice is not the place to find it.

Honestly, sometimes it amazes me the people WotC keeps in their employ.

Honestly? In todays current economic situation, questioning someone keeping their job, for doing their job the way that they are required to, is utterly loathsome behaviour.

 

[Maxperson]

And what about this one?
[NEW] What happens if I’m polymorphed or Wild Shaped into a creature with fewer than 100 hit points and then I’m targeted by power word kill? You die.

Great Nerf to a class that did not need one. The druid gets to the bottom of all classes with its only redeeming feature. I ruled that you are thrown of the new form, but nope you die. No matter if the druid has personally 200 hp. He took the form a humming bird to move fast, but the evil archmage was near. Boom! The druid is dead... An other good SA.


Yep. And if the shield is a +3 one. It is a Rich man's animated shield.

Disintegrate will also ash the hummingbird druid.