Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Coredump" data-source="post: 2675346" data-attributes="member: 6939">I have two responses to this. First. It *was* a clarification. The rules in the PHB talk (and hence the XP penalty) talk *only* about 'classes', not 'prestige classes'. All of the examples of multi-classing, and what it means, is dealing with base classes.In the DMG, when Prestige classes are introduced, they are described as a 'new' way of multiclassing. The *specifically* say they follow the rules on page 58, but make NO mention of the rules on page 60. Does this leave things a bit ambiguous, yes. Therefore, it needs a clarification that the rules are written, just like they are supposed to be.Second itemYou are right. No one is saying that Sage Advice/FAQ never gets things right. But that question was answerred by CustServ way before Sage got to it. Should everything CustServ states be treated as RAW also?No. Because they sometimes guess wrong. Well, so does Sage. He just plain gets it wrong too often to be assumed everything he says it right. Plus, he hardly ever *says* he is changing something, he (apparently) makes a ruling based on what he happens to remember at the time. If he would at least call out "This is a change in the rules" It would give him more credibility.Question: Do you think he meant to 'errata' that sheathing while moving is legal, or do you think he just goofed? Or do you think he just doesn't know?There is no real error to change. It is confusing, and perhaps poorly written, but it can be read either way. Thus it is a *clarification*, not an errata.I say the base problem is that Sage (*not* WoTC) is using his columns to post house rules that change the written rules. It has been shown that these 'rulings' sometimes turn into official changes, and somtimes they do not. But the Sage just keeps saying them anyway. (Invisible flanking) Until he can be consistent, and at least label them as changed, or suggestions, that he can not be taken as 'official', since he in unreliable.Yes, he was 'very clear' about the invisibility not providing flanking. Of course, when 3.5 came out it still did not follow his 'ruling', but he said it again.</blockquote>

Verification