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

[FrogReaver]

The only official rulings at my table are my rulings.

Sigh, I really should have forseen this kind of total dodge of a non-answer totally ruining this kind of thread.

Of course your rulings are official for your game. But wotc can have official rulings as well wouldn't you agree?

 

[FrogReaver]

I consider them to be guidelines. Too many inconsistencies between Sage Advice and his tweets to be taken as gospel.

I'm usually a stickler for the "official" rulings but 5E works just fine if you completely ignore them.

Thanks, Guidelines would fall in category #2 "They are between nearly official and meaningless unless they match or contradict sage advice."

 

[Bacon Bits]

I only really seek them if there's confusion at the table that the table can't resolve it or there's still some doubt. Honestly, I can't think of anything I've relied on it for, particularly once multiple rulings had been published that everybody at the table agree was stupid. I've played long enough that I don't need some guy to interpret RAW for me, even if he's one of the guys that wrote the book.

Additionally, the OP left off the very next paragraph:

A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions.

That provides a fairly meaningful bit of context.

 

[Yunru]

Thanks, Guidelines would fall in category #2 "They are between nearly official and meaningless unless they match or contradict sage advice."

You mean that broadest possible category (everything from "not quite gospel" to "slightly better than a bum's words"), that will inevitably be used to support your "gospel unless contradicted" stance?

 

[Mistwell]

Sigh, I really should have forseen this kind of total dodge of a non-answer totally ruining this kind of thread.

That was kinda rude Froggy. He's basically saying he agrees with the next sentence that was left off in this statement. If that is a "dodge" that "ruins" the thread, then it was a crappy thread to begin with because it was a perfectly valid answer to this question. So perfectly valid that it was IN THE OFFICIAL ANSWER. Which for some strange reason you left off the OP quote.

 

[FrogReaver]

That was kinda rude Froggy. He's basically saying he agrees with the next sentence that was left off in this statement. If that is a "dodge" that "ruins" the thread, then it was a crappy thread to begin with because it was a perfectly valid answer to this question. So perfectly valid that it was IN THE OFFICIAL ANSWER. Which for some strange reason you left off the OP quote.

You mean this part "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."

1. It was the start of a new paragraph.
2. It should have been obvious that you are always free to ignore an official ruling in play.

So really what point would including an obvious statement have on this thread about how close to an official ruling people see JC's tweets?

 

[FrogReaver]

You mean that broadest possible category (everything from "not quite gospel" to "slightly better than a bum's words"), that will inevitably be used to support your "gospel unless contradicted" stance?

The only thing that supports my stance is option #1. The only thing that supports your stated stance is options #3. I'm actually surprised all options are as even as they are.

 

[Satyrn]

Maybe, but sage advice used the term "official ruling"

Yes, I count WotC as one of us. I think they should expunge the phrase from their vocabulary, too.

 

[Mistwell]

You mean this part "A Dungeon Master adjudicates the game and determines whether to use an official ruling in play. The DM always has the final say on rules questions."

1. It was the start of a new paragraph.
2. It should have been obvious that you are always free to ignore an official ruling in play.

So really what point would including an obvious statement have on this thread about how close to an official ruling people see JC's tweets?

Yes I mean that part, and no being part of a new paragraph does not in any way make it not relevant to this topic as it is about this topic and was referring to this topic. That's why it's there.

You may disagree, but at this point saying "the only official rulings are those I make at my table" is in fact a valid perspective for this topic and not derailing the thread or dodging anything. You just don't appear to like that perspective or agree with it. But if you're going to do a poll of how others view it, then you should be willing to be open enough to accept some others do view it that way. It's as valid an answer as yours. It's certainly at least as valid as "They are no closer to official than something a bum off the street could say," which was a pretty snarky spin you put on the poll to begin with. You set that tone, don't complain that others match it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes I mean that part, and no being part of a new paragraph does not in any way make it not relevant to this topic as it is about this topic and was referring to this topic. That's why it's there.

You may disagree, but at this point saying "the only official rulings are those I make at my table" is in fact a valid perspective for this topic and not derailing the thread or dodging anything. You just don't appear to like that perspective or agree with it. But if you're going to do a poll of how others view it, then you should be willing to be open enough to accept some others do view it that way. It's as valid an answer as yours. It's certainly at least as valid as "They are no closer to official than something a bum off the street could say," which was a pretty snarky spin you put on the poll to begin with. You set that tone, don't complain that others match it.

You asked why I didn't include that part. I gave you 2 reasons. The reasons showed it was nothing nefarious like you suggested.

As to the "official ruling is whatever I rule at my table" that's a silly play on the multiple perspectives official can be used in. Yes he can have an official ruling for his tables, but this thread is obviously about wotc's official rulings. Trying to conflate the 2 and then to answer the question as if the question is about your official table rulings is disingenuous and I'm glad I called that out as multiple posters were starting to jump on that bandwagon.

As to the poll option, that was the exact phrasing used to describe JC's tweets on another thread. So please get your facts straight before you call me out on something. At least ask, hey Frogreaver, why did you word that the way you did. Ask questions first, then ream me out for it later if my answer matches your suspicions