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

[PnPgamer]

I would be happy about the errata being ignored. Scorchingc ray would be better for evocation wizards and dragon sorcerers. But i am fine with errata as well.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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

How can you say that with a straight face? There are rules that aren't the most clearly presented that the sages can clear up their intent behind them. This particular rule was clearly presented, and the sage clarification goes directly against that. If we are dealing with the written word, then reading comprehension DOES matter regardless of who one happens to be.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

How can you say that with a straight face? There are rules that aren't the most clearly presented that the sages can clear up their intent behind them. This particular rule was clearly presented, and the sage clarification goes directly against that. If we are dealing with the written word, then reading comprehension DOES matter regardless of who one happens to be.

you must be jokeing... if the person writing something say "I mean X" and you argue "No, you didn't mean X you meant Y or you would have written it differently" it is entirely fair to take the writer at his word and dismiss the 'reading comprehension"

 

[ExploderWizard]

you must be jokeing... if the person writing something say "I mean X" and you argue "No, you didn't mean X you meant Y or you would have written it differently" it is entirely fair to take the writer at his word and dismiss the 'reading comprehension"

If the writer truly meant X and wrote Y then it is the writing that was bad. It was one or the other in this case. There is NOTHING ambiguous in the wording to the class feature in question.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If the writer truly meant X and wrote Y then it is the writing that was bad. It was one or the other in this case. There is NOTHING ambiguous in the wording to the class feature in question.

I would have agreed with you I read it as you have, and am the #1 person complaining about this sage advice...but if they say "it means X" then it means X weather we like it or not...

 

[ExploderWizard]

I would have agreed with you I read it as you have, and am the #1 person complaining about this sage advice...but if they say "it means X" then it means X weather we like it or not...

Does it? Last I checked, it was me running my campaign, not Mr. Crawford or any other sage. If another DM wants to use the sage decision in his/her own campaign I'm fine with that. I just have to laugh at the idea that the contents of sage advice are regarded as some sort of objective universal truth.

 

[MG.0]

Does it? Last I checked, it was me running my campaign, not Mr. Crawford or any other sage. If another DM wants to use the sage decision in his/her own campaign I'm fine with that. I just have to laugh at the idea that the contents of sage advice are regarded as some sort of objective universal truth.

There are good and bad rules. There are good and bad Sage Advice clarifications of rules. Why is anyone surprised at this?