Jeremy Crawford's New Sage Advice Column

Thanks. I hadn't seen it.

 

[JTorres]

I'd rather they fix things via a new subclass (battle master 2.0, under a different name) or add a few rules patches than "here is our updated paladin class!" type fixes. 4e and Pathfinder both have gone down this road (4e nearly completely re-writing battle rager, Pathfinder nerf-sticking Crane Wing Style into oblivion).

If I can play 5e using the errata a clarification tool rather than a rewritten core-book, I'll be perfectly happy.

This might be a better path for the designers to take. For the record, I have zero interest in a 5.5 set of core books too. However, I do hope they continue releasing variant rules and world-specific packets (like the Eberron stuff).

 

[Mercurius]

I'm confused as to why Brian Dennehy is pictured as the sage.

 

[Psikerlord#]

This looks like it will be an interesting column and I'm looking forward to it.

I think the RAF perspective includes ways and situations in which the DM might depart from both RAW and RAI to come up with the solution that is most useful for the situation and the group at hand--ad hoc house ruling if you will. Any useful discussion of rules in a DM-centric system would necessarily include adapting or throwing out rules entirely if they are becoming an impediment rather than a helpful tool. Don't like the stealth rules or the two-weapon fighting rules? Here are some potential alternatives for you to consider. That sort of thing.

I agree and also hope that is what he means by RAF - once you have RAW and RAI covered, all that is left is alternative rules that may make the game more fun for certain playstyles as opposed to others.

I am interested to see the RAI for insights. But I am more excited to see the RAF (assuming above is correct). Healing rates from PHB are a good example. Here is the basic rule (RAW). Now here is some insight into why we made it this way (RAI). And finally here are some alternates which should better suit more heroic or grittier games (RAF). In fact they should have done this all through all the books, ala 13th Age style.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I'd rather they fix things via a new subclass (battle master 2.0, under a different name)

I'd much rather have 4es "here's the errata" than 3.X's "here's a new class making the old ones basically obsolete" (see Warblade and Fighter, etc.). On that note:

or add a few rules patches than "here is our updated paladin class!" type fixes. 4e and Pathfinder both have gone down this road (4e nearly completely re-writing battle rager, Pathfinder nerf-sticking Crane Wing Style into oblivion).

If I can play 5e using the errata a clarification tool rather than a rewritten core-book, I'll be perfectly happy.

I'm totally okay with this, too. But I think they should fix anything "broken" or wildly out of balance (I hear level 2 shapeshifting Druids are bad, as an example, but I haven't played 5e personally).

Anyway, thoughts and perspectives on how errata should be used is an interesting subject for me. I get both sides (and those somewhere in the middle). It's a hard issue.

 

[Dausuul]

So you are happy with the current core books just fine. Some of us are not. If they redesign them don't buy the new ones.

We're talking about redesigns carried out by way of errata. I wouldn't mind seeing some variants and new subsystems, but that stuff belongs in Unearthed Arcana, not Sage Advice.

 

[GX.Sigma]

Hmm, another monthly column.

And still no news on the magazines.

Hmmm.....

 

[pming]

Hiya.

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.

And what if he comes back with "Our design intent when we wrote the Stealth rules was to leave it up to individual DM's to decide how easy or hard, how specific or broad, being able to Hide and/or otherwise 'Stealth around' in their own games. There are a million and one different factors that would go into a complete break down of how/when/where someone could use Stealth; we didn't want to do that, so we left it open to interpretation by individual DM's".

My point is that I believe the design intent of a LOT of the 5e rules are just that... purposefully written in a way that DM's would have to use their own brains and preferences to decide exactly what is right for their game. The intent = use your brain, don't rely solely on a book. That's my guess anyway.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Dausuul]

And what if he comes back with "Our design intent when we wrote the Stealth rules was to leave it up to individual DM's to decide how easy or hard, how specific or broad, being able to Hide and/or otherwise 'Stealth around' in their own games. There are a million and one different factors that would go into a complete break down of how/when/where someone could use Stealth; we didn't want to do that, so we left it open to interpretation by individual DM's".

My point is that I believe the design intent of a LOT of the 5e rules are just that... purposefully written in a way that DM's would have to use their own brains and preferences to decide exactly what is right for their game. The intent = use your brain, don't rely solely on a book. That's my guess anyway.

If he comes back with that answer, then I and a lot of other folks will be rightly annoyed. The designers are being paid out of our pockets--all that money we spend on rulebooks--and we don't pay them to play Zen master. We pay them because they have the time and the expertise to design a better system than we could build for ourselves.

If the rules are going to leave a certain decision up to the DM, then they should be up front about it: "This is up to the DM to decide." Otherwise, they should be clear and straightforward. As the stealth rules exist right now, it's quite easy for a player to read them and conclude one thing, while the DM concludes something else, and neither of us knows that the other one has different ideas (because we don't spend a month going over the entire rulebook together line by line). Then someone tries to use Stealth at the table, and the session crashes to a halt. As DM, I make a ruling on the fly, and explain it so my players understand how it works, and then I have to come back after the session and review the ruling to be sure it's how I want things to work in future, and explain that to my players, and it's a waste of all of our time.

I am perfectly prepared to adjust the rules if they don't serve the needs of my table. But I want to know what the rules are, so I know if I have to inform my players that they're being adjusted.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'd rather they fix things via a new subclass (battle master 2.0, under a different name) or add a few rules patches than "here is our updated paladin class!" type fixes. 4e and Pathfinder both have gone down this road (4e nearly completely re-writing battle rager, Pathfinder nerf-sticking Crane Wing Style into oblivion).

If I can play 5e using the errata a clarification tool rather than a rewritten core-book, I'll be perfectly happy.

I hope beyond hope for a class rebuilt with battle master type manuvers that level up (you don't need 9 like spells, even just 1,5,10,15 would be 4 (or 5 if you include a 20)level progression) then have sub classes that dip supernatural (like dessert wind Bo9S) I'm fine with the fighter being weak if we have a martial weapon user that isn't

 

[Jeremy E Grenemyer]

Thank goodness for Rules As Fun.

You'd think this concept would not need to be explained, but the Internet proved there is no such thing as an equal distribution of common sense.

I like that there will be discussion of the intent behind rules. This will help DMs and players alike that are stuck on a rule interpretation, in ways a simple RAW explanation would not.