D&D 5E Sage Advice!

[Jester David]

Oh man, this needs to be on the WotC site. Answering questions on twitter is great, but it's very transitory. The answer will vanish into the debts of a Twitter archive in days.
You can already see a bunch of repeated questions.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I appreciate the devs answering questions from us players, even if i might disagree with some answers, gives us a bit of insight into their thinking/design. I especially love that they often say "I would rule...." , ie suggesting that others might rule differently.

 

[Morrus]

Oh man, this needs to be on the WotC site. Answering questions on twitter is great, but it's very transitory. The answer will vanish into the debts of a Twitter archive in days.
You can already see a bunch of repeated questions.

No, it'll be archived on wonderful sites like EN World, which has been doing this sort of thing for 15 years! Do not worry!

 

[Jester David]

No, it'll be archived on wonderful sites like EN World, which has been doing this sort of thing for 15 years! Do not worry!

While I love the site and have been coming here many, many years (several before I registered for the forums), it's not quite as obvious a destination for new players with questions for the game as the official website.

 

[Morrus]

While I love the site and have been coming here many, many years (several before I registered for the forums), it's not quite as obvious a destination for new players with questions for the game as the official website.

Sucks to be them, eh?

 

[Eric V]

Humm,
These two are exactly the opposite of how I'd rule. It's easier to put a weapon in another hand, cast a spell and put it back then to take a hand off of a two-handed weapon, cast, and go back? Also, utterly hoses wizards with a staff AFAICT.



Others have thoughts on this?

My thoughts are that those rulings are completely inconsistent with each other. Yeesh.

I also have thoughts about the "ruling" (because I don't consider something that begins with 'probably' to be a ruling) on the bracers of defense, and those thoughts amount to asking people to just read the words describing the item. Done? Good, now can you explain how there could be an explanation that would make sense in the English language describing how they wouldn't stack with unarmored defense?

Doesn't help that apparently there was an unintentional difference in the language between unarmored defense and mage armor. Like it would have killed to have some consistency...I have a hard time believing people actually like this level of ambiguity.

 

[Mistwell]

My thoughts are that those rulings are completely inconsistent with each other. Yeesh.

I also have thoughts about the "ruling" (because I don't consider something that begins with 'probably' to be a ruling) on the bracers of defense, and those thoughts amount to asking people to just read the words describing the item. Done? Good, now can you explain how there could be an explanation that would make sense in the English language describing how they wouldn't stack with unarmored defense?

Doesn't help that apparently there was an unintentional difference in the language between unarmored defense and mage armor. Like it would have killed to have some consistency...I have a hard time believing people actually like this level of ambiguity.

Hey, grumbling new guy - people like different things. I love this level of ambiguity, and you don't. If you have a hard time believing people like it, you can just ask us why we like it maybe?

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I like the ambiguity in general, but when it comes to stuff like whether warlock invocation level requirements are based on class level or character level, there is absolutely no advantage to doing it on a table by table basis like Mearls suggests. That's not a matter of play style or DM preference; it's purely about mechanical balance, which isn't the DM's job to figure out.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Another odd "ruling" concerns allowable Sneak Attack weapons:

Can thrown weapons be used for sneak attack damage? Seems to go against the qualifiers of sneak attack being Ranged-Finesse. yes, they can. basically, as a DM feel free to let the rogue sneak attack with anything that deals a d6 or less. -M

Much more flexibility if true, including easier to build Strength rogues, a sort of flexibility that I favour, but surprising.

(also mentioned here)

 

[Eric V]

I like the ambiguity in general, but when it comes to stuff like whether warlock invocation level requirements are based on class level or character level, there is absolutely no advantage to doing it on a table by table basis like Mearls suggests. That's not a matter of play style or DM preference; it's purely about mechanical balance, which isn't the DM's job to figure out.

Mistwell,

This explains it. Where's the advantage in math mechanics being ambiguous? Especially since they want to promote Adventurer's League; It would not be fun to show up at a table one week to discover that, this time around, your AC is reduced by 3(!) because this particular DM has a different idea about how AC should be calculated with bracers of defense.

Oh, and my name is Eric, jerk.