Elven Trance, Spell Scrolls, Grappling & More: New Sage Advice

Jeremy Crawford's September Sage Advice column has appeared, and it deals with elven traces, thief features, various combat questions, plus a couple of queries about spells and scrolls. As usual, these questions and answers have also been added to the Sage Advice Compendium. "Elven Trance, spell scrolls, grappling, and other rules bits. This month, we touch on several rules questions that have come up quite a few times over the past year." (thanks to Ghost Matter for the scoop)

 

[Mouseferatu]

Sure he can be. And if he's a good DM, then he admits it, and is happy to let his players contribute their own knowledge of the system to the game, increasing the fun for everyone.

Well, DMs can make mistakes, sure. But what I think MG.0 meant is that a DM who chooses to interpret a rule a given way, or play with a certain house rule, isn't "wrong." He's not playing the game "wrong" or breaking the rules. He's exercising the DM's prerogative*. Saying "But Sage Advice said to do it differently!" is fine for informational purposes, in case the DM did indeed make a mistake. But using it to try to convince the DM to change a deliberate choice is a misuse of the material and a misunderstanding of how the game is meant to be played.

*And, of course, it's the player's prerogative to decide "I don't like this rule" and leave the game, or make a polite, one-time case for a change. But it is not the player's prerogative to try to bully/bludgeon the DM into changing his mind.

 

[MG.0]

Well, DMs can make mistakes, sure. But what I think MG.0 meant is that a DM who chooses to interpret a rule a given way, or play with a certain house rule, isn't "wrong." He's not playing the game "wrong" or breaking the rules. He's exercising the DM's prerogative*. Saying "But Sage Advice said to do it differently!" is fine for informational purposes, in case the DM did indeed make a mistake. But using it to try to convince the DM to change a deliberate choice is a misuse of the material and a misunderstanding of how the game is meant to be played.

*And, of course, it's the player's prerogative to decide "I don't like this rule" and leave the game, or make a polite, one-time case for a change. But it is not the player's prerogative to try to bully/bludgeon the DM into changing his mind.

Thanks, that was exactly the intent of my post. Yes DM's are human and can make mistakes, and I always welcome players pointing out something I may have overlooked, but if a DM chooses to interpret a rule differently than you, then he cannot, by definition, be wrong.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Well, DMs can make mistakes, sure. But what I think MG.0 meant is that a DM who chooses to interpret a rule a given way, or play with a certain house rule, isn't "wrong." He's not playing the game "wrong" or breaking the rules. He's exercising the DM's prerogative*. Saying "But Sage Advice said to do it differently!" is fine for informational purposes, in case the DM did indeed make a mistake. But using it to try to convince the DM to change a deliberate choice is a misuse of the material and a misunderstanding of how the game is meant to be played.

*And, of course, it's the player's prerogative to decide "I don't like this rule" and leave the game, or make a polite, one-time case for a change. But it is not the player's prerogative to try to bully/bludgeon the DM into changing his mind.

Since when is making a reasoned argument bullying?

That said, I don't particularly agree that "because the sage said so" is a useful argument. It would be much better if these sorts of things gave the reasoning behind the ruling. As is, only one of the questions has a section that says "here's our ruling, and here's why", which is a shame. As an example, a DM who had allowed the rogue to use magic items as a bonus action (so that he can quaff a potion) might be somewhat ambushed when said rogue gets a hold of something more destructive.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Since when is making a reasoned argument bullying?

It's not. I even said that making a polite, one-time case for the change was part of the player's prerogative.

 

[Acr0ssTh3P0nd]

It's funny, I always figured that a creature using "Multiattack" functioned just like a fighter with extra attack, but I see now that that's technically not RAW.

Shame, that makes my homebrew Dark Sun monster far less lethal, since it can't use its multiattack to shove a creature twice and double its chance to push them off cliff edges (its favored hunting ground)...

 

[Mouseferatu]

Shame, that makes my homebrew Dark Sun monster far less lethal, since it can't use its multiattack to shove a creature twice and double its chance to push them off cliff edges (its favored hunting ground)...

Just make "double shove" one of its multiattack options. Boom, done.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

It's funny, I always figured that a creature using "Multiattack" functioned just like a fighter with extra attack, but I see now that that's technically not RAW.

Shame, that makes my homebrew Dark Sun monster far less lethal, since it can't use its multiattack to shove a creature twice and double its chance to push them off cliff edges (its favored hunting ground)...

Can you actually use shove twice per turn with extra attack? I think you can only replace one of your attacks anyway, but I'm unsure as the wording isn't clear:

If you’re able to make multiple attacks with the Attack action, this attack replaces one of them.

(basic rules, p.74)

 

[Rya.Reisender]

Not true at all. The rules don't cover billions of possibilities, and never will. Rulings fill the gaps. That is the way the game is intended to work. ALL...and I do mean ALL of the rules are subject to DM interpretation and override.

Yeah, there are many rules that are unclear, so the DM has to create ruling for them, but once something has been clarified by Sage Advice that part of the rule becomes clear and no longer requires a ruling.

Try thinking of clever ways for your charcter to accomplish stuff...then worry about what rules are involved.

Yes, that's how you play games with rules.

LOL. The DM cannot be wrong...by definition.

He can be wrong with his rulings if Sage Advice says something else. It's not his fault of course, as the rule wasn't clear if it needed clarification, but as the others said, a good DM will admit his mistakes and reconsider.

This is different from a houserule where a DM consciously decides to change something he doesn't like. (But as said, I just can't play with DMs that do that.)
Well in a way he can even be wrong about adding a houserule. That is, when it ruins the enjoyment of his players.

 

[Saeviomagy]

He can be wrong with his rulings if Sage Advice says something else. It's not his fault of course, as the rule wasn't clear if it needed clarification, but as the others said, a good DM will admit his mistakes and reconsider.

No, he can be wrong if he's made a ruling which is worsening the game. Sage Advice is only relevant as far as it gives considered, reasoned arguments for why a rule should be a certain way.

Unfortunately I think it's failing at that.

 

[Orlax]

Based on the rules we already know I don't see why not. You can identify a magic item during a short rest, and you can attune to a magic item during a different short rest. Neither of those activities negates the bonus of a short rest. Therefore, my ruling would be that an elf could identify /attune to up to 4 items per long rest.

You know what, you are right, I was getting some wires crossed in my readings. I was going to say, "Yes but you can use higher level slots to avoid your darkness or daylight spell from being dispelled", but the sage advice ruling didn't even mention that, and given the exact reading of the spells yeah using a 4th level slot for darkness would keep daylight from dispelling it but it wouldn't cause the daylight to be dispelled. So you are definitely correct that the sage advice is on point. This does however cause an issue... What happens when a 4th level slot darkness is cast in the area of a 3rd level daylight area? Does the darkness override the daylight without dispelling the light effect?