D&D 5E JC Tweets: How Close to official rulings do you consider them to be?

[FrogReaver]

The Newest Sage Advice states: "Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets are often a preview of rulings that will appear here."

My question to you is, after reading this part of sage advice, how close to official do you consider JC's tweets to be. I'll give my take down below.

 

[Yunru]

They're not. You cliterally just quoted where they're officially decreed as not. You can't get any clearer than that.

 

[FrogReaver]

apparently my poll failed. any advice on how to fix it?

 

[Yunru]

I think a new thread is the only way, unfortunately :/

 

[FrogReaver]

I think a new thread is the only way, unfortunately :/

Apparently there is an option under thread tools that lets you add a poll.

 

[TwoSix]

If they match my opinion, they're pretty much official, and I'm happy to point them out to my DMs.

If they don't match my opinion, I happily ignore them.

 

[Hriston]

His tweets were RAW. Now they are just advice.

 

[FrogReaver]

My take is that JC is the guy who makes official rulings in sage advice and is also the lead rules designer. To me that gives him some authority on the subject of D&D rules that a bum on the street simply does not possess.

The sage advice is clear that twitter rulings are not official. However, in the absence of an official stance in sage advice I think that the lead rules designers rulings are the closest thing we have to official. So while, they aren't official, in absence of an official ruling they are still the closest thing to official we have and so they are what I'm going to consider the defacto official ruling until an actual official ruling is given in sage advice.

 

[LordEntrails]

His tweets were RAW. Now they are just advice.

They were never RAW. RAW is only what's written in the published rule books. Even Errattas not RAW until published.

 

[Hriston]

They were never RAW. RAW is only what's written in the published rule books.

You are correct. I should have said, “official rulings”. It’s just that whenever anyone talks about RAW, they’re really talking about RAW interpretations or rulings. Jeremy Crawford’s tweets formerly gave us the official stance on how the RAW was to be interpreted, i.e. what it meant. Now, as I’ve said, it’s just advice on how to interpret the RAW from the game’s lead rules designer.

Even Errattas not RAW until published.

I would question whether errata even exist before they’re published. What would that even look like?