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.

 

[the Jester]

I have not read all 10 pages, but I am disappointed in the conjure ruling - although I very much appreciate how the actual sage advice was worded, and I find it simple and well-justified to continue to interpret it the way we have before, as I would suggest anyone else should do if they would like.

The reason I am disappointed is that it potentially sets up a point of conflict between the player and the DM. Specifically, that spell is either completely worthless or amazingly overpowered and it 100% depends on what you conjure (or rather, it depends on if you conjure pixies or anything else).

I'll dispute your assertion that anything but pixies is a waste. But this obviously depends greatly on the game in question.

 

[evilbob]

Given we haven't seen the Monster Manual errata yet, I expect we may still see a direct 'fix' for the 'pixiemancer' problem.

Looking at their stats, sure they only have 1 hp, but Invis plus some potent spells seems to warrant a CR change compared to something like the Sprite. CR1 or CR2 from CR 1/4 would basically make it a non-issue.

Ah - yes, this is probably an even better solution. The CR 1/4 probably comes from the lack of a real ability to hurt you, but the rest of the package far exceeds this CR.

 

[evilbob]

I'll dispute your assertion that anything but pixies is a waste.

I never speak in hyperbole.

Generally I just meant that the potential for awesomeness re: pixies far exceeds the other options.

 

[Mistwell]

I have not read all 10 pages, but I am disappointed in the conjure ruling - although I very much appreciate how the actual sage advice was worded, and I find it simple and well-justified to continue to interpret it the way we have before, as I would suggest anyone else should do if they would like.

The reason I am disappointed is that it potentially sets up a point of conflict between the player and the DM. Specifically, that spell is either completely worthless or amazingly overpowered

False dichotomy. Just about any choices for the spell are fairly useful. The only complaint I am aware of is the Pixie one (and only SOME of those pixies). The rest were all considered varying levels of "just fine" to "really quite good". So how is the spell ever completely worthless now? Which summoning is worthless? I mean, people were calling it a tad overpowered BEFORE they noticed the pixie thing - hordes of smaller creatures all attacking is quite useful in a game with bounded accuracy on AC.

 

[DEFCON 1]

The reason I am disappointed is that it potentially sets up a point of conflict between the player and the DM. Specifically, that spell is either completely worthless or amazingly overpowered and it 100% depends on what you conjure (or rather, it depends on if you conjure pixies or anything else). That means your spell is going to be AWESOME or a complete waste and his advice says that it should be up to the DM to determine if your contribution in battle is great or worthless based on how the spell is interpreted. That is a very poor way to adjudicate a game in my opinion.

A much better solution would have been to change this spell. Do something different with it - even if all you change is "actually, you can't summon pixies" because at least then the expectation of what the spell can do would be set. (It would be worthless and no one would use it, but the expectation would be set.) But as it stands, the spell is just too good and leaving it up to the DM to determine if you get AWESOME or worthless results just promotes poor feelings and bad gameplay.

Also see: moonbeam.

Except that to do this, WotC would be admitting that it is now their job to protect the game from bad players and bad DMs. Which is a job they do not want to do nor take on... and I'm pretty sure many of us don't want them to take it on or do it either. Because that just leads to the massive attempts at scientific wordsmithing necessary in order to try and make every rule fool-and-misunderstanding proof that they tried to do with 4E.

If you think this rule intention is a bad one for your table and will only produce bad results between player and DM-- then that's a problem with your table and is the real problem that needs to be "fixed". The Sage Advice is just a symptom. And WotC can't help you fix your table's dynamic. It's not their job.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Huh. I think it's pretty clear: Calculate your AC normally. Is it lower than 16? Then it's 16. But I agree that some of these things, like cover, add interesting quirks to the mix.

It is, I agree, completely clear; it's also poorly conceived. People see a spell called "barkskin" that toughens your skin, and they expect that narrative to have some impact on the mechanical implementation. It's that connection which is missing: cast barkskin on a character (Dex 12) with just a shield, AC becomes 16. The character drops the shield, AC still = 16 (~the skin toughens?). Then they pick the shield up again, or stand in front of a low wall, and the skin gets less tough...

As a purely mechanical effect, it's acceptable though ill conceived. But it's not "barkskin".

 

[Vael]

I don't hate the ruling on conjuring creatures. I'd appreciate a chart to roll on as a DM just to make my job easier, but every spell you cast should have some degree of variance - not every spell you cast has to be directly useful, and I like both the wide variety that a random roll would create and the encouragement of creative thinking on behalf of a character who uses this spell.

For those players who want more precision with their summoning, I think a spell or a series that could specify a monster would suit that goal - not a general "any creature of CR X" but some specific creature. That way we get the best of both worlds.

It was odd to me that all the summon spells had been renamed "conjure x", and this might be why. Summon Bat, gets you a bat. Conjure Animals might get you a bat.

 

[evilbob]

If you think this rule intention is a bad one for your table and will only produce bad results between player and DM-- then that's a problem with your table and is the real problem that needs to be "fixed". The Sage Advice is just a symptom. And WotC can't help you fix your table's dynamic. It's not their job.

Well obviously I disagree, and I think there's a big gap between "fix your table's dynamic" and "make a rule that isn't easily abused." But whatever. I just think this is a poor fix to a bad spell. (I promise my entire gaming life isn't ruined because of it.)

 

[evilbob]

False dichotomy.

Ok, my party of four flying CR 7 ape monsters (obtained at level 7) isn't spectacularly more useful than four satyrs? Eh, whatever you want, but I think I'll take the ape monsters.

 

[Remathilis]

Ok, my party of four flying CR 7 ape monsters (obtained at level 7) isn't spectacularly more useful than four satyrs? Eh, whatever you want, but I think I'll take the ape monsters.

And this is why I like the Sage Advice ruling