NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cap'n Kobold" data-source="post: 8104511" data-attributes="member: 6802951">You are entitled to disagree with WotC as to the purpose and implementation of anything that they do, whether that is Sage Advice, Unearthed Arcana, or indeed the D&D game itself.If you're after intention behind a specific rule, some of the developers will give it: just not in Sage Advice which is the official interpretation of the rules as they are written. IIRC they have outright said that they have houserules that do not follow strict interpretation of the rules in their games.However, if the insults and belittling caused by people disagreeing with what Sage Advice should be sounds like a gossip circle of entitled Karens outraged when the manager supported their employee, can you imagine what it would be like if Sage Advice wasn't strictly based on RAW? Every time JC gave a non-raw interpretation of a situation, you would have people screaming at insults at him. (Or more likely throwing those same personal attacks and disparagements through a medium in which he would not find out about them.) "But the rules say this! You're not going by the rules that you wrote! You're stupid and don't deserve to write for D&D!" . . . and so on.Sage advice sticking to RAW is, I think, very much the safer option. Even when that interpretation is not what the developer would suggest that you actually houserule. The people who need the chapter and verse get the chapter and verse. The people who don't get a springboard for houseruling. They went with that the spell actually said, rather than with a houserule that would contradict the PHB text. If they ewanted to do that, they would put it in the errata.</blockquote>

Verification