D&D 5E Player's Vote against Errata; GM dies of shock

[Coredump]

Used it in AL play last year based on the best evidence of the designers we had at the time. My basic idea is that when in doubt on the rules, make the ruling that is in favor of the players.

It's quite powerful, especially with classes that don't really care about short rests (aside from using them to get HP back). Most AL games are one session affairs so the player with this synergy always had a basketfull of berries.It made encounters very easy.

As an AL DM.... you are perfectly fine ignoring the Sage Advice and keep it at 1hp per berry.

 

[Schmoe]

A happy DM or player(s) typically result from a mutual agreement or understanding at the table. When you take a strong arm approach in reference to my view is right and there is no compromise is when problems start to occur. Whether it is errata, meta gaming, min/maxing a character, etc. is just the root cause to how certain behaviors occur at the table.

The TPKs will continue until morale improves!

 

[El Mahdi]

Correct. The sage advice ruling is just an opinion based on less than stellar reading comprehension.

Ah yes, the old ad hominem logical fallacy. Don't like or don't agree with something? No need to bother with refuting it using reason, or even just respectfully disagreeing. Instead, just attempt to criticize and denigrate the person.

Also, rhetorically speaking, since an argument of reason is a much stronger argument, choosing an ad hominem approach tends to imply one has no reasonable argument in the first place.

Not to mention, if it's against ENWorld's rules to post this way about fellow posters, then what would possibly make it okay to do so just because the person didn't post here?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Ah yes, the old ad hominem logical fallacy. Don't like or don't agree with something? No need to bother with refuting it using reason, or even just respectfully disagreeing. Instead, just attempt to criticize and denigrate the person.

Also, rhetorically speaking, since an argument of reason is a much stronger argument, choosing an ad hominem approach tends to imply one has no reasonable argument in the first place.

Not to mention, if it's against ENWorld's rules to post this way about fellow posters, then what would possibly make it okay to do so just because the person didn't post here?

Check the goodberry thread. That is where I provided logical reasoning for my own decision to not have the disciple of life feature work with goodberry. If the goodberry spell actually healed a creature upon its casting then there would be an opening to include it. A theoretical 9th level spell that creates 6 vats of Keoghtoms ointment wouldn't benefit either because once again, no creature had hit points restored as a result of casting that spell.

 

[El Mahdi]

I think the rules-light nature of 5e is doing us all some good. I'm a happy GM at the moment.

I think it's been good for the entire D&D community. Well, most of the community anyways.

I think it shows just how versatile and open the design of this game is, and a credit to the philosophy the game's designers followed; especially the idea that this is our game - yours, mine...Ours.

Whether rules in the book or Sage Advice, we choose what works for us on our tables. Nothing is written in stone, so there's really no reason to be mean or gnash our teeth over it. It's working the way it's supposed to.

Glad you guys are having fun!

 

[El Mahdi]

Check the goodberry thread. That is where I provided logical reasoning for my own decision to not have the disciple of life feature work with goodberry. If the goodberry spell actually healed a creature upon its casting then there would be an opening to include it. A theoretical 9th level spell that creates 6 vats of Keoghtoms ointment wouldn't benefit either because once again, no creature had hit points restored as a result of casting that spell.

None of which addresses why it's okay to be mean towards someone just because you disagree with them...

 

[Sacrosanct]

Ah yes, the old ad hominem logical fallacy. Don't like or don't agree with something? No need to bother with refuting it using reason, or even just respectfully disagreeing. Instead, just attempt to criticize and denigrate the person.

Also, rhetorically speaking, since an argument of reason is a much stronger argument, choosing an ad hominem approach tends to imply one has no reasonable argument in the first place.

Not to mention, if it's against ENWorld's rules to post this way about fellow posters, then what would possibly make it okay to do so just because the person didn't post here?

None of which addresses why it's okay to be mean towards someone just because you disagree with them...

Whoah! I think you're being incredibly uncharitable with your reading of EW's posts. He's not attacking anyone personally or being mean. He's simply saying that he thinks the optional ruling in SA is good that it's optional because it was based on poor reading comprehension. He's not saying Crawford is a horrible person who steals peoples' girlfriends and stinks of moldy cheese or anything. If he did that, then it would be an ad hominem. As it is, isn't isn't an ad hominem because he's attacking the argument basis (poor reading comprehension led to a flawed ruling), and not Crawford personally. All of us have had times where our reading comprehension is poor, and that's what EW based his reasoning on. Not that Crawford in general can't read. But just in this scenario he made a mistake.

 

[El Mahdi]

Whoah! I think you're being incredibly uncharitable with your reading of EW's posts. He's not attacking anyone personally or being mean. He's simply saying that he thinks the optional ruling in SA is good that it's optional because it was based on poor reading comprehension. He's not saying Crawford is a horrible person who steals peoples' girlfriends and stinks of moldy cheese or anything. If he did that, then it would be an ad hominem. As it is, isn't isn't an ad hominem because he's attacking the argument basis (poor reading comprehension led to a flawed ruling), and not Crawford personally. All of us have had times where our reading comprehension is poor, and that's what EW based his reasoning on. Not that Crawford in general can't read. But just in this scenario he made a mistake.

First of all, an ad hominem argument is any argument that attempts to attack the credibility of the one giving an argument, rather than their argument itself. Saying Crawford's reading comprehension is less than stellar means that Crawford's arguments are automatically suspect - without actually addressing Crawford's argument. That's the very definition of an ad hominem argument.

Second, when it's the clarification of someone that actually designed the game, reading comprehension isn't even a factor.

That is unless one is trying to say Crawford doesn't understand what he, and those who worked for or with him, actually wrote?

Sage Advice is not Rulings, it's clarification by someone that actually wrote the game - or even if he didn't actually write that specific section, was privy to the thoughts of whoever did, and can reach out to those people directly even now.

It's as if today's supreme court, rather than trying to discern the motives of those who wrote the Constitution, were able to actually go ask them, face-to-face, what they intended.

No. Scratch that. It's as if James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington and any other of their congressional contemporaries were personally doing a Constitution FAQ on the internet, directly giving Americans clarification on what they intended when writing the Constitution.

But even ignoring the above, choosing to believe - or at least state - that it's Crawford's reading comprehension that is at fault, is at the least assuming only one reason is true despite the multitude of possible reasons available; any one of which would have the same amount of evidence for - which is to say, absolutely none.

Not to mention that there is almost no situation where questioning somebody's reading ability could possibly be construed as other than at least rude. In the case of Crawford it can't even be spun as neutral or even matter of fact (as even as an argument of fact it would be purely subjective or speculative).

There was nothing positive, respectful, or even just neutral about what Exploder Wizard said.

And this behavior is exactly why there's a dearth of such people as Crawford and Mearls no longer posting here.

Would you post here if you were being told your reading comprehension is less than stellar?

And that's exactly the point. It's not okay by ENWorld's rules to say that to another poster. It's rude in just about any situation. So why is it somehow okay to say the same about Crawford just because one doesn't agree with him?

The answer: It's not.


Anyways, I'm done. I've said what I wanted to say, and I'm not a mod so there's nothing I can do about it. Whatever Exploder decides to do from this point is up to him.

Good Day.

 

[Sacrosanct]

First of all, an ad hominem argument is any argument that attempts to attack the credibility of the one giving an argument, rather than their argument itself. Saying Crawford's reading comprehension is less than stellar means that Crawford's arguments are automatically suspect - without actually addressing Crawford's argument. That's the very definition of an ad hominem argument.

He didn't say Crawford had poor reading comprehension in general. He said in this case, "less than stellar" reading comprehension is what led to Crawford's opinion that EW disagreed with. That's not an ad hominem because it's directly in the context of Jeremy's interpretation of that particular rule. It's the exact same thing if I said, "I disagree with you because I think you interpreted that wrong." That's certainly not an ad hominem.

Second, when it's the clarification of someone that actually designed the game, reading comprehension isn't even a factor.

That is unless one is trying to say Crawford doesn't understand what he, and those who worked for or with him, actually wrote?

Uh, yeah it is. I create and design games, and I'm here to tell you, I don't have every rule or subrule memorized that I wrote, and there are times where I've gone back and questioned myself as to the interpretation of a rule that I wrote a year to two earlier. And those are games where I'm the only one who wrote them. I assume more than Jeremy had input on the rules of D&D.

But even ignoring the above, choosing to believe - or at least state - that it's Crawford's reading comprehension that is at fault, is at the least assuming only one reason is true despite the multitude of possible reasons available; any one of which would have the same amount of evidence for - which is to say, absolutely none.

I would bet you $100 that Jeremy would admit that yeah, sometimes they go back and interpret a rule differently now than what they may have intended a few years ago. Why am I so confident? Because this happens to literally every game designer I know, including myself. Game designers are regular people, and we're not infallible. Most of us understand that, and don't think it's some great personal attack on us for someone to say that they think we interpreted a rule incorrectly. Why you're getting so upset and taking it so personal is beyond me.

Not to mention that there is almost no situation where questioning somebody's reading ability could possibly be construed as other than at least rude. In the case of Crawford it can't even be spun as neutral or even matter of fact (as even as an argument of fact it would be purely subjective or speculative).

There was nothing positive, respectful, or even just neutral about what Exploder Wizard said.

And this behavior is exactly why there's a dearth of such people as Crawford and Mearls no longer posting here.

Would you post here if you were being told your reading comprehension is less than stellar?

Yes, I would. And yes, I've been told that. And I didn't take it as a personal attack unless that person was saying I had horrible reading comprehension in general. But EW didn't say that. He said that in this one context, he felt Jeremy's opinion was based on "less than stellar reading comprehension."

And one more thing. Anyone who designs games and gets as worked up as you for something like what EW said is in the wrong freaking businesses. If you take even the slightest form of criticism as a personal attack, get out of the design business now. I'm pretty sure anyone who designs games understands this. The reason game designers don't participate in forums like (certain unnamed sites) is not because someone said something like what EW said. It's because people make comments like accusing them of being bigots and racists, or garbage incompetent game designers, or call them horrible people. Which I'll note, is miles away from saying that you think a game designer interpreted a rule wrong. The gap between the two is wide indeed.

 

[guachi]

As an AL DM.... you are perfectly fine ignoring the Sage Advice and keep it at 1hp per berry.

And the ability to ignore what the rules say is why I stopped playing AL games. Shorter AL: You can't houserule and ignore the rules except when you can. Which is all the time.