There didn't need to be a Sage Advice for you to be able to lose HP upon leveling up if your Con is sufficiently low. It was always the case. Because it's always been in the rulebook. Crawford answered because somebody asked. And now you are having a fit because Crawford answered a question.
The rule was "official" with or without Crawford answering the question.
I put this to you: Without reference to anything tweeted by Crawford how do you determine, by the rules, HP upon leveling up? And, by following the rules, is it possible to lose maximum HP?
A player never needed this tweet to go to a table and say that you could lose HP upon leveling with a sufficiently low Con and rolling for HP.
I believe you are confusing me with someone else. It was other people who were saying that there should be errata written stating that a PC should not be able to lose HP and that there should always be a minimum of 1 HP gained even when you roll HP and have a negative CON modifier... which I was arguing against.
They were the ones who wanted rules changed (or "clarified") within the errata. And I was arguing against that because doing so changes the editorial policy of what WotC wanted 5E errata to be, and besides which anyone can choose for themselves to give a minimum of 1 HP to a PC at their table if they so chose. Errata need never come into it.
Last edited: