Sage Advice chat transcript

[Trainz]

NO, I don't have it, sorry...

I wanted to get there tonight, but I forgot my password (haven't been in WotC chat in years), and sure enough, it takes hours before you get it back.

SO...

If it is legit, can someone please post a chat transcript in this thread, or link to one. For someone who was there, it would have been a simple matter of select all and copy in a text file, so there's bound to be someone who did that.

Thanks !

 

[IndySteve]

Bump...

This is a shameless bump....

 

[welby]

oh man, I got my hopes up....bump

 

[IndySteve]

Ripped this off Wizards Messageboards...

///BEGIN RIPPED MESSAGE///
Arilon
Member

Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Fishers, Indiana

Answer from the Sage
For what it's worth, I particpate in the online "Sage Advice" Chat that took place on Tuesday, March 23.

I asked the Sage the following question:
"If my rogue sneak attacks with a +1 flaming short sword, what type of damage is the sneak attack damage? Is it piercing, flaming, or both? I think it's piercing."

The Sage responded that I had indeed applied the weapon damage correctly, that the sneak attack damage is for the base weapon itself; you THEN add the bonus damage for the flaming property after you have added the weapon damage and the sneak attack damage.

You can use or ignore it, but I thought I'd mention it here. I did ask the moderator if there would be a transcript (I'd like to post his reply verbatim) but apparently they don't keep transcripts.

Mark

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged 03-24-04 05:56 AM
///END RIPPED MESSAGE///

I can't believe they don't keep transcripts, it's not like it's that difficult, especially when we're talking about something as important as rule clarifications <sigh>

 

[Ferret]

I would have gone but the chat time wasn't GMT friendly. Anyone know if the sage addressed the subject of familiar size/type with becoming improved familiars?

 

[allenw]

I would have gone but the chat time wasn't GMT friendly. Anyone know if the sage addressed the subject of familiar size/type with becoming improved familiars?

I was there for almost all of it; the questions didn't come up.
I must admit, I was rather underwhelmed. The very first question, unsurprisingly, was on the "hit points when polymorphed" question that the DMG errata and CustServ disagree on. Skip's response, paraphrased but accurate, was:
1: I didn't know the DMG errata had come out;
2: Why would polymorphing be in the DMG?
3: I thought that changing CON always changed Hit Points, but if WoTC says differently for Polymorph, cool, it saves recalculation effort.

(I happen to agree with his ultimate conclusion in point 3, but he didn't actually address the problem that WoTC "says" two different things. I was flabbergasted by point 1, and distressed by point 2; isn't knowing such things his job?)

 

[Planesdragon]

(I happen to agree with his ultimate conclusion in point 3, but he didn't actually address the problem that WoTC "says" two different things. I was flabbergasted by point 1, and distressed by point 2; isn't knowing such things his job?)

1: Hey, the Sage agrees with me! w00t!

2: Yeah, Skip isn't a full-time Sage, so his rules-judgeship is questionable.

His job should be a full-time position (or held by a full-timer) at WotC.

 

[Hypersmurf]

1: I didn't know the DMG errata had come out;

...

... he...

... wow.

-Hyp.

 

[jgsugden]

Heresay!

Until I hear it from the Sage myself, I refuse to accept that he is *THAT* bad at his job.