Jeremy Crawford's New Sage Advice Column

Thanks. I hadn't seen it.

 

[JTorres]

Jeremy Crawford's new Sage Advice column has launched on the official D&D website. The inaugural article looks at the concept of such a column and discusses the difference between Rules As Intended (RAI) and Rules As Written (RAW), two acronyms you'll find in abundance on any roleplaying game messageboard. He also adds a new one, Rules As Fun (RAF). He also adds a note on upcoming errata: "We’ve been studying Twitter, forums, emails, and our play experiences to find out where the core books need correction. We’ll start by publishing corrections for the Player’s Handbook and then move on to the other books. Don’t expect any dramatic rules changes to show up in the forthcoming errata. We’re focusing on straightforward corrections: cutting extraneous words, adding missing ones, and clarifying things that are unclear."


Check out the article here.

(image ©2013-2015 axlsalles)

 

[Paraxis]

Good to see a new article, but not much there honestly. Would have been nice to answer a few questions especially if it is going to be a month before the next one.

 

[Remathilis]

WILL THERE BE ERRATA FOR THE CORE BOOKS?
Yes, there will. We’ve been studying Twitter, forums, emails, and our play experiences to find out where the core books need correction. We’ll start by publishing corrections for the Player’s Handbook and then move on to the other books.

Don’t expect any dramatic rules changes to show up in the forthcoming errata. We’re focusing on straightforward corrections: cutting extraneous words, adding missing ones, and clarifying things that are unclear.

Fifth edition now belongs to the thousands of groups playing it. It would be inappropriate for the design team to use errata as a way to redesign the game. When we come across something that is more of a redesign than a correction, we put it into a queue of things to playtest and possibly publish at a later date. We’ll let you know if a redesign is around the corner!

Sounds like "no more X instead of Y" errata. We'll see how that holds up.

 

[TarionzCousin]

It doesn't seem like there's any real substance to this article. I don't know if I like that better than Skip's previous "Here are some things that contradict previous written rules and maybe some stuff that makes no sense. Enjoy!"

 

[neobolts]

I've been using the term RAW for years, but hadn't encountered RAI or RAF. I'm going to start incorporating them into convos with the rules lawyers in my group.

Other than that, this is more of a "HELLO WORLD" rather than a column #1. Look forward to seeing the intended versions of answers once the column gets underway in earnest. In fact, presenting a couple of possible solutions to each question would be a great approach.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

sounds cool, and we have a few articles up this month... maybe regular updates are starting

 

[Zaran]

I'm more curious about the parts about redesign. I think there are portions of the game that need it. No one gives a drek about errata that is merely typo corrections. I have to agree that like the other articles this month there just wasn't a lot there. And we have to wait another month for anything more.

 

[Paraxis]

RAI is hand and hand with RAW and been around just as long, RAF I have never seen before and hope to not see again, it makes no sense. The intent behind the rules should be fun to begin with. Intent is hard enough to figure out unless it is something like Sage Advice where the designers are answering the questions, Fun is so subjective from person to person and group to group as be something no one could answer to the satisfaction of most people.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm more curious about the parts about redesign. I think there are portions of the game that need it. No one gives a drek about errata that is merely typo corrections.

What he's suggesting is more than just typo corrections. He also mentioned clarifications, and lots of people would love that.

Take the stealth rules. ENWorld has seen bitter battles waged over the meaning of that cryptic sidebar. It would be immensely helpful to know exactly how WotC expected stealth to work. Mechanics from the wood elf's Mask of the Wild ability to the rogue's Cunning Action to the invisibility spell all tie back into the stealth rules.

Even if I decide that I'm going to make up my own house rules for stealth, knowing WotC's design intent will help me understand what areas my house rules are going to affect and what issues I need to address.