D&D 5E On rulings, rules, and Twitter, or: How Sage Advice Changed

[Bedrockgames]

I haven't read sage advice since it was in Dragon Magazine (didn't realize it was still being carried on online). I don't think I used every piece of advice but I do recall enjoying reading the analysis

 

[Charlaquin]

I haven't read sage advice since it was in Dragon Magazine (didn't realize it was still being carried on online). I don't think I used every piece of advice but I do recall enjoying reading the analysis

It’s less that it’s still being carried on online, and more that, when 5e came out, they created a weekly column on the website for answering frequently asked rules questions and used the same name for it. Also, I don’t think it’s even a weekly column any more. Just a compendium of “official” rules clarifications.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I agree.

Because:


Yes.

The whole point of all the videogame, Tv series, and movie initiatives Hasbro is doing; is to make "D&D" as a brand profitable independent of RPG sales.

Magic is still the big money maker for WOTC but for various reasons D&D is the more exploitable IP.

With D&D riding a all time high of popularity, Hasbro is trying to strike while the iron is hot and Leverage D&D to an evergreen Brand like The Transformers.

Hasbro wants to make the "D&D" brand big enough that the RPG side of the franchise will be incidental to the bottom line.

And I hope they succeed. The more profitable the brand is, the less hasbro will bother about the game itself, and we will never see them make decisions for the game from the stratosphere.

 

[Parmandur]

And I hope they succeed. The more profitable the brand is, the less hasbro will bother about the game itself, and we will never see them make decisions for the game from the stratosphere.

Not too likely anyways: Hasbro is actually a well-run and competent corporation, which is why they have so many successful brands. They let the subject experts make decisions.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Nah. It was clear. People just didn’t want to admit it because apperently only getting advantage against the prone target on one attack makes the whole feat “garbage”.

I read the rule as allowing the shove before the attack and my reasoning had nothing to do with its effectiveness, only the way the rule was written. And Jeremy Crawford originally ruled that way, too! So it's unfair to claim that the only reason people read the rule that way is because they thought the feat was weak.

Regardless, it is wrong to suggest that it is illegitimate to consider the effectiveness of a mechanic when trying to figure out how it's intended to work. That's because you need to understand the game as a whole in order to be certain you understand a specific rule properly. For instance, the metamagic Quickened Spell says "When you Cast a Spell that has a Casting Time of 1 action, you can spend 2 sorcery points to change the Casting Time to 1 Bonus Action for this casting." From a purely technical perspective, that rule is perfectly clear. But does it mean that you can cast two Daily spells with it if they both use 1 action? No, because somewhere else in the PHB is a rule that says in such a situation one of the spells has to be a cantrip.

Similarly, if a particular reading of a rule would seem to make an ability either too weak or too strong, it is reasonable to infer that such a reading is in error. So it is fine to take into account how effective a feat would be with various rulings as part of working through which ruling is correct.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

What, being a reasonable adult willing to work with your table? Pretty sure that goes against the Gamers Creed.

Now I'm thinking I need to delete my post. Can't let that curse get passed on....

 

[Jaeger]

And I hope they succeed. The more profitable the brand is, the less hasbro will bother about the game itself, and we will never see them make decisions for the game from the stratosphere.

Actually, in many ways Hasbro has been a fairly benign overlord. I have seen more than one mention that they allow WOTC to act pretty much independently.

If there is anything to worry about it is the guys in charge of D&D getting ideas about the direction of the game again like they did with 4e.

Because the more D&D as a brand becomes independent from D&D the game, the less Hasbro will care what WOTC does with the RPG.

Which can be a very good thing - which is why I hope for the utmost success.

But great "Brand" success does have the potential to become a double edged sword for the RPG side...

Not too likely anyways: Hasbro is actually a well-run and competent corporation, which is why they have so many successful brands. They let the subject experts make decisions.

WOTC did do a lot of things right with 5e. So the pressure from the fanbase is to not change things up too much.

Any 50th anniversary / 6e will be more of a AD&D1e to AD&D2e move. With almost total backwards compatibility for monsters and adventures.

It'll be interesting to see what announcements are made in 2023.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Actually, in many was Hasbro has been a fairly benign overlord. I have seen more than one mention that they allow WOTC to act pretty much independently.

If there is anything to worry about it is the guys in charge of D&D getting ideas about the direction of the game again like they did with 4e.

Because the more D&D as a brand becomes independent from D&D the game, the less Hasbro will care what WOTC does with the RPG.

Which can be a very good thing - which is why I hope for the utmost success.

But great "Brand" success does have the potential to become a double edged sword for the RPG side...




WOTC did do a lot of things right with 5e. So the pressure from the fanbase is to not change things up too much.

Any 50th anniversary / 6e will be more of a AD&D1e to AD&D2e move. With almost total backwards compatibility for monsters and adventures.

It'll be interesting to see what announcements are made in 2023.

Honestly, I think we will see near total backwards compatibility for PCs, as well. It will feature things like rewriting the Beast Master Ranger to feature the Beast of XYZ as options in the main writeup, some sort of hybrid of Natural Explorer/Favored Enemy and their replacement features, some classes might go from known spells to prepared spells, and dual wielding could get a rewrite, but that's about the most extreme differences I can see happening, and those all leave the player able to use subclasses from before the anniversary edition or whatever with the anniversary edition classes.

 

[Jaeger]

Honestly, I think we will see near total backwards compatibility for PCs, as well. It will feature things like rewriting the Beast Master Ranger to feature the Beast of XYZ as options in the main writeup, some sort of hybrid of Natural Explorer/Favored Enemy and their replacement features, some classes might go from known spells to prepared spells, and dual wielding could get a rewrite,

Good point.

As much a people do like 5e, it does have some legit issues.

Any 50th/6e team will have to decide how it really wants to address those because I think that you are probably right; Real backward compatibility will have to be there to keep the player base happy.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Good point.

As much a people do like 5e, it does have some legit issues.

Any 50th/6e team will have to decide how it really wants to address those because I think that you are probably right; Real backward compatibility will have to be there to keep the player base happy.

IMO 5e has very nearly no serious issues. Plenty of minor stuff, but nothing that threatens to make the game not work.