D&D (2024) Sage Advice Compendium Updated To 2024

The latest Sage Advice Compendium updates provide official rules clarifications for D&D 2024. Sage Advice is not errata, but acts more like a FAQ for common rules queries.

The Sage Advice Compendium collects questions and answers about rules interactions in Dungeons & Dragons. With the release of the new Core Rulebooks, Sage Advice has been updated to encompass the new material presented in these books. It will continue to be updated as more questions are brought up by the community.

 

[dave2008]

Have to disagree, it's definitely game breaking. Action economy is king in 5e, 2014 or 2024. It's why solo-combats-without-legendary-actions are so weak.

Nah, you can design a solo monster without LA that can threaten a party. It is just the LA typically make it more interesting.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The problem is, “some action that reveals you” is not fully defined. I mean, we know that attacking, casting a spell with a verbal component, and making a sound louder than a whisper qualify as an action that reveals you. But we don’t know if that list is exhaustive. In particular, the text itself is quite ambiguous as to whether or not leaving the conditions needed to take the hide action would reveal you. It seems intuitive that it would, apart from the fact that the word “invisible” in common parlance would imply the opposite. And the clarifications the developers have given seem to me to suggest that their intent is that doing so would not actually reveal you.

While I dislike other aspects of these rules I like that leaving hiding doesn’t necessarily reveal you and I think it’s necessary that there is wiggle room in the description of what reveals you.

The 4e rules were even sometimes too restrictive with moving and then attacking while hidden not being possible in situations where it rationally should have been, like sprinting out from hiding to tackle-gank a guard from behind.

 

[Charlaquin]

While I dislike other aspects of these rules I like that leaving hiding doesn’t necessarily reveal you and I think it’s necessary that there is wiggle room in the description of what reveals you.

I’m open to that being possible, but it needs to be clearly and explicitly stated that this is the intent.

 

[Azzy]

No PDF? Odd, they made PDFs for the errata documents.

 

[Minigiant]

You kinda proved my point. Every example I've seen that's game breaking involves using the same bonus action twice in a turn. To use your example, would it be game breaking to banish a demon and cast Healing Word or Spiritual Weapon? Not really. If you limit it to different actions, it only becomes an issue if you have two bonus actions that are both the equivalent to a regular action, and those are pretty rare.

Because you're right.

The entire point of the creation for bonus actions is to allow for a special action that can only be done once per turn.

So technically if you do one special bonus action and another completely special bonus action there is no real problem.

The entire problem is if you use the same bonus action twice in the turn.

So it probably would be a valid house rule to allow somebody to use their action to make a bonus action but you would have to put an additional house rule that if you trade your action to make a bonus action you cannot make that same bonus at you again in the same turn.

But again the true issue is that bonus actions will never designed to be limited in power just limited in frequency and that's why such a house rule could be dangerous because although bonus actions that are as strong as a action or rare they probably exist officially. And it probably are home brewed a lot so it's just a very very very very very very very very very very very very very very dangerous house rule to allow.

 

[dave2008]

I’m open to that being possible, but it needs to be clearly and explicitly stated that this is the intent.

Why?

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

No PDF? Odd, they made PDFs for the errata documents.

They want you to spend as much time on the dndbeyond website as possible. They want to keep you in that ecosystem for everything.

 

[Charlaquin]

Why?

Because that’s how game rules work…? I don’t feel like “rulebooks should explain the rules clearly and explicitly” requires justification…

 

[dave2008]

Because that’s how game rules work…? I don’t feel like “rulebooks should explain the rules clearly and explicitly” requires justification…

IDK. As I have gotten older I prefer some rules to be vague and more like guidelines or suggestions then rules. For example, I don't really think I need much stealth and hiding rules. We just go with what is common sense to us, and it has worked for decades through multiple editions!

Reminds me of an interview with Mike Mearls I watched a year ago or so and they were discussing how complex and codified the Wish spell has gotten. They felt unnecessarily so, and then they looked at Shadowdark:

Wish
This mighty spell alters reality.

Make a single wish, stating it as exactly as possible. Your wish occurs, as interpreted by the DM.

Treat a failed spellcasting check for this spell as a critical failure, and roll the mishap with disadvantage.

Yep, that is all we really need (IMO).

 

[Blue]

Nah, you can design a solo monster without LA that can threaten a party. It is just the LA typically make it more interesting.

Just looking for clarification so I understand what you mean.

Are you refuting what I said, claiming that using normal monster creation rules you can make good solo fights without Legendaries (and without going outside bounds like greatly inflated CR or powers like summons that turn it into not-a-solo fight).

Or are you expanding on what I said, where you can design other mechanisms besides Legendaries to make a solo fight a good fight?