Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7773945" data-attributes="member: 6919838">I also use house rules. Have in every campaign I have ever run. Also, I would disagree slightly with your characterization of the discussion. This discussion is not about RAW if you choose to define RAW in a way that excludes Sage advice. I mean, the actual title is "Sage Advice Compendium Update" not "RAW without counting Sage" or something like that. That makes it odd to declare the discussion is about RAW only not counting Sage.Then even more oddly you bring up AL.For someone who elects to play AL they are electing to play by the official books and have the option of adding the official Sage or not, presumably also of using any other source for their rulings at the table they want as long as it's not in direct conflict with RAW. Sounds a lot like what we have already established - folks can elect to use the book as is, or with Sage (both fine in AL) or to not (elect yo play non-AL) - none of it is binding on any GM.But that just means we have another official source saying it's fine to use Sage for adjudication, so it adds to the odd sense that being dismissive of rulings that do just that because Sage advice isnt official enough for you to choose to use it is... dubious.At the very least, it seems that the AL info **you** brought up puts "ruling based on Sage" on equal footing to "rulings not using Sage" (where adjudicatiins are made based on whatever the GM prefers to use -barring contradiction) not inferior to them.So that makes using the "non-binding" nature of Sage Compendium as a point or platform to dismiss rulings based on it - as a response to someone referring to ruling "in a way that is consistent official rulings" - perhaps itself inconsistent with using the AL- which sets that up as an acceptable practice.</blockquote>

Verification