New Sage Advice: Class Features, Combat, Spells, & Monsters

There's a new Sage Advice column up from D&D designer Jeremy Crawford. This month he tackles class features, combat (bonus actions; reach weapons), spellcasting, and monsters. It's quite a long edition, covering 18 questions in total, all questions asked via Twitter.

You'lll find the article here. All Sage Advice material is added to the Sage Advice Compendium, which is a 6-page PDF of questions and answers.

 

[Ristamar]

There's only one way to lose though according to the Basic Rules: Failing to achieve the goals of play (having a good time together and creating an exciting, memorable story). The Basic Rules even go so far as to say that the characters can fail their objectives or die horribly and everybody (meaning the players) still "wins" as long as those goals of play are achieved. I have found that when players buy into this notion, they don't do the things you say your players will do.

No need to push that song and dance back on to the floor. I'm sure most had their fill in the GWM/SS thread, and I doubt anyone is changing their tune.

 

[Celtavian]

No need to push that song and dance back on to the floor. I'm sure most had their fill in the GWM/SS thread, and I doubt anyone is changing their tune.

You ain't kidding. No one needed to be told to have fun.

 

[iserith]

No need to push that song and dance back on to the floor. I'm sure most had their fill in the GWM/SS thread, and I doubt anyone is changing their tune.

That doesn't make me wrong as far as that goes. If the players and DM have different goals or ideas of what it means to "win" or "lose," then there's bound to be issues that the DM has to put his or her foot down about. I think addressing the underlying issue is better than pointing to some Rules Answers column to justify the DM choosing the player's summoned creatures for them because they can't otherwise be trusted.

In any case, I've made my position clear so I'll leave off on this score.

 

[Jester David]

There's only one way to lose though according to the Basic Rules: Failing to achieve the goals of play (having a good time together and creating an exciting, memorable story). The Basic Rules even go so far as to say that the characters can fail their objectives or die horribly and everybody (meaning the players) still "wins" as long as those goals of play are achieved. I have found that when players buy into this notion, they don't do the things you say your players will do.

Fun is a tricky thing. Some players enjoy destroying a fight, or find fun in building characters (which then need to be tested). We're conditioned to see winning as fun.
And fun includes the DM. If my monsters and hard designed boss fight get owned because of a broken spell or combo, then that's no fun. And having the heroes triumph without any problems also makes for a poor story. So I don't have an issue with a harsh ruling closing a broken loophole.

 

[the Jester]

Still no explanation of Barkskin?

What is unclear about it?

 

[Uchawi]

I am an advocate of fixing the process, versus creating contention between the DM and players. If a summoned creature causes a problem it speaks of the process of creating monsters and/or CR being less predictable. In the end, the DM has final say anyways, so it is funny to enforce DM entitlement, when player entitlement is supposed to be a bad thing. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

 

[Celtavian]

That doesn't make me wrong as far as that goes. If the players and DM have different goals or ideas of what it means to "win" or "lose," then there's bound to be issues that the DM has to put his or her foot down about. I think addressing the underlying issue is better than pointing to some Rules Answers column to justify the DM choosing the player's summoned creatures for them because they can't otherwise be trusted.

In any case, I've made my position clear so I'll leave off on this score.

Crawford did not create the rule because he didn't trust players. He created it because that was the intent behind the spell and the game is meant to be played in a somewhat theatrical manner where the DM describes the conjured creatures appearing from the environment. Some DMs may not bother to use the ruling because it creates extra detail work for them.

I don't plan to decide for the player every time. I'm going to nix choices that don't make sense given the environment and tell the player to choose something else appropriate to the environment, then I will describe their arrival.

 

[Gadget]

What is unclear about it?

does it work with a Shield/cover? unclear as written and I've seen vehement arguments on this very board for both ways.

Does it work with wild shape? Same thing.

I think there may have been a couple of other nuances and issues with it, but that is the gist of it as far as I can recall.

 

[Psikerlord#]

It's not an on/off switch. It's a continuum, with on one side zero balance and on the other side perfect balance. No game has either extreme, you can just move along the line between the two. A game can be fun without perfect balance - indeed, as no game has perfect balance I'd say all fun games are fun without perfect balance.

You care about balance more than I do. It's not that I have no care for balance, it's just not as important on my list of priorities as it is for you. I am more comfortable with the dial set to something closer to the zero balance end along that continuum, and you are more comfortable with the dial set closer to the perfect balance end of the spectrum. That's OK. You're not more right or more wrong because you care about that criteria for your games more than I do. It's just a preference, and neither is more or less valid than the other.

I dont disagree. For the record i consider I require a "rough balance" to play the game enjoyably. Not much breaks that balance for me in 5e, but examples of things that do are the 8 x pixie conjure woodland beings, the -5/+10 damage mechanic and devils sight invocation.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I dont disagree. For the record i consider I require a "rough balance" to play the game enjoyably. Not much breaks that balance for me in 5e, but examples of things that do are the 8 x pixie conjure woodland beings, the -5/+10 damage mechanic and devils sight invocation.

Apologies for the tangent, but Devil's Sight is not as good as it looks in my experience, at least after low levels. Many of the things that you really want to put down quickly have Blindsight or Truesight already: slimes, dragons, devils, yugoloths, etc. In fact there are a number of monsters such as Nycaloths and Glabrezu who can themselves pull off the Devil's Sight combo.

Building your character around an ability which works only against low-level foes is kind of like building a character around Fireball and Fiendlock temp HP: you'll have fun and you'll be a rock star in regular easy fights, but at the most critical moments someone else will have to carry the heaviest load because your shtick looses oomph against tough opponents.