D&D 5E (2014) Player's Vote against Errata; GM dies of shock

[Wik]

Talking to a player today about our campaign session. He's always been the most mechanically-minded player in the group, and we were talking about how he's not really "getting" his bard's "schtick". So, we talk about some of the things his bard will soon be able to do (5th level is just around the corner!) and he's getting excited. Good stuff, so far.

Then we mention that the errata and newest sage advice has come out. We talk about this. In a recent encounter, and one I posted about last week, the party's monk got a vicious weapon. We ruled, using the PHB, that a monk's unarmed attacks count as "weapons", and so suffer from disadvantage due to the weapon's curse. I told him that apparently the errata says this isn't the case. Rules as Written, in the errata, the party monk should be absolutely fine with this vicious weapon.

Then we talk about this goodberry fiasco. The player is normally the type whose eyes would gleam over at such news. It doesn't happen here, however. This, despite the fact that he has a free spell slot just around the corner.

We discuss a few more ways that adopting the errata could make things easier for the party. He listens to them all, and my most mechanically-minded player outright asks me to leave the errata out of the game. That he's having fun as it is, and doesn't need the headache of the rules.

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

 

[Uchawi]

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.

 

[ExploderWizard]

A table of happy engaged cooperative players beats RAW 10 times out of 10.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A table of happy engaged cooperative players beats RAW 10 times out of 10.

Yep, this. Which seems to be forgotten a lot if you read internet message boards

Question to the OP though. Is one of your players a life cleric/druid multi-class? If not, I wouldn't even have discussed goodberry because it would be moot. That ruling seems to have stirred up a hornets nest, which is odd for being something that relies on a situation that probably doesn't ever really come up in actual play.

 

[Wik]

Question to the OP though. Is one of your players a life cleric/druid multi-class? If not, I wouldn't even have discussed goodberry because it would be moot. That ruling seems to have stirred up a hornets nest, which is odd for being something that relies on a situation that probably doesn't ever really come up in actual play.

No, he's not. And we have Multi-classing barred from play due to a group vote anyways. HOWEVER, this player used to love making fun combos using the rules, and in 4th we did use the errata which lead to some strange characters. When I mentioned this one to him, he just groaned and thought it was stupid and asked that we do not include it.

I take it as a good sign from him. He's made a point to not even read the PHB this time around, so that he doesn't know the full rules and can approach the game in a similar way to how it was done in the "good ol' days".

I've been playing with mostly this same group since 2009 or so, through three different editions now. And two of the players tend to gravitate on the rules (I do not). It just strikes me as pretty awesome that in 5th, those two players have moved away from that line of thinking and are trying a new tack. It could be that we've played for nearly a decade at this point and they're changing their approach out of respect for what I want in a game, or it could be that 5th discourages a mechanical/competitive approach.

More likely, it's a combination of both.

Plus the fact that we ran a 1st to 20th Pathfinder game before this campaign, and I think even the die-hards are sick of all the math that occurs in the endgame for PF.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

We discuss a few more ways that adopting the errata could make things easier for the party. He listens to them all, and my most mechanically-minded player outright asks me to leave the errata out of the game. That he's having fun as it is, and doesn't need the headache of the rules.

Goodberry isn't an erratum.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Goodberry isn't an erratum.

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

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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

Well, that's kind of par for the course for Sage Advice. At least, that's how I remember Dragon Magazine's Sage Advice.

 

[guachi]

Yep, this. Which seems to be forgotten a lot if you read internet message boards

Question to the OP though. Is one of your players a life cleric/druid multi-class? If not, I wouldn't even have discussed goodberry because it would be moot. That ruling seems to have stirred up a hornets nest, which is odd for being something that relies on a situation that probably doesn't ever really come up in actual play.

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.

 

[Coredump]

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

Not quite. WotC has stated that Sage Advice is the official clarification of how he rules actually work.