Sage... Dragon... Advice... what?

[Saeviomagy]

I've seen publicly printed retractions from the Sage, one just recently. And at least one of the FAQ answers was changed when the FAQ was updated.

These both slipped under my radar - what were they concerning?

 

[jgsugden]

I've seen publicly printed retractions from the Sage, one just recently. And at least one of the FAQ answers was changed when the FAQ was updated.

The sage get's things wrong sometimes, I'll be the first to admit that. But overall he's just as accurate as Hypersmurf or myself. He just get's a bigger spotlight shone on him when he's wrong.

The Sage has occasionally retreacted a ruling when it proved wrong, but he doesn't do it for a majority of his bad rulings. If you're speaking for WotC in an official capacity, you should make *very* few mistakes ... and when you do, you should fix all of them if they are brought to your attention. Regardless of the compensation he does or does not receive from WotC, he is an official spokesman for them. That gives him some power ... and to quote Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibilities."

As for the Sage being as accurate as Hypersmurf ... if there were a D&D trivia contest between Hypersmurf and the Sage, I'd put my money down on Hypersmurf. I'd put a *lot* of money down on Hypersmurf. (Don't let your head swell up there, HS ... you're not perfect, but you seem to have a much better track record than the Sage).

 

[Hypersmurf]

Don't let your head swell up there, HS ...

Have I ever?

-Hyp.

 

[Ranger REG]

Sorry, Hypersmurf. I gotta go with the Sage, even if I disagree with him, and in turn, Wizards. It's the official rulings I want.

P.S. Note the absence of the word "correct" in the last sentence.

 

[Caliban]

The Sage has occasionally retreacted a ruling when it proved wrong, but he doesn't do it for a majority of his bad rulings.

How many bad rulings are we talking here, exactly? What constitutes a majority in this case?

Most of them he probably doesn't believe are bad rulings. What is obvious to one person is not obvious to another, as has been seen many times on these very boards. Disagree with the Sage, but don't make the mistake of thinking he's stupid or wrong-headed just because he reads something differently than you or I.

If you're speaking for WotC in an official capacity, you should make *very* few mistakes ... and when you do, you should fix all of them if they are brought to your attention. Regardless of the compensation he does or does not receive from WotC, he is an official spokesman for them. That gives him some power ... and to quote Uncle Ben, "With great power comes great responsibilities."

Actually, I don't think he's an official spokesman for WOTC, at least not anymore. He's certainly not employed by them, they don't pay him anything for his Sage Advice column. It's the magazine that pays him for that, and Dragon isn't owned by WOTC, it's owned by Piazo publishing.

I don't have a problem with people using the Sage Advice to support their answers. Some people do that with Hypersmurf's answers now, and in the past some people used to quote me over the Sage. The only thing that's really "Official" is whatever makes it into the FAQ, and even that has problems.

Since the actual R&D team refuses to issue actual errata in a timely matter or respond to e-mails more often than once in a blue moon, we are pretty much left hanging. Skip Williams has at least tried to communicate with the players and clear up rules ambiguities, which is more than anyone else from the company has done. (Andy Collins answered questions for a brief period after the release of 3.5, then stopped.)

Skip isn't perfect, but he's better than the wall of silence we usually get from WOTC. However, I do take his answers with a larger grain of salt these days. He's not on the design team anymore, and doesn't have the inside information about the intent of the authors that he used to. With the "changing of the guard" on the design team that accompanied with 3.5, the "designers intent" seems to have changed in a few areas of the rules, and he's probably biased towards the 3.0 designers intent when he has to make a call.

I'm just saying that he deserves a little more respect than all this knee-jerk Sage bashing everytime somone disagrees with an answer of his.

 

[jgsugden]

How many bad rulings are we talking here, exactly? What constitutes a majority in this case?

I'll let you look in the dictionary for the word majority, but as for how many bad rulings has he made? A LOT. I 'm not going to even try counting them for you. Some of them directly contradict the rules in the book. Some only violate inferences in the core books. Most of them get discussed on various boards. If you want to see them, do a few searches.

Disagree with the Sage, but don't make the mistake of thinking he's stupid or wrong-headed just because he reads something differently than you or I.

Skip is a creative guy. He has a lot of positive attributes. Unfortunately, rule management and research are not amongst his strengths ... and two of the most important aspects of giving advice (along with the ability to be blear and concise).

Actually, I don't think he's an official spokesman for WOTC, at least not anymore.

As mentioned earlier in this thread, WotC has (fairly recently) stated that his words have authority. Further, they print his advice in their FAQs on their site. He has authority.

Skip isn't perfect, but he's better than the wall of silence we usually get from WOTC. However, I do take his answers with a larger grain of salt these days.

Help that does more damage than good is not really help. One bad 'official' ruling can cause more negative issues than the number of positive issues that arise out of a score of good rulings. I've seen countles arguments surrounding bad Sage rulings on various boards. I've also seen many issues resolved by quoting good sage advice as well. Does his positive input exceed the value of his negative impact? That is not a clear yes ... and it should be if he is doing his 'job' correctly.

I'm just saying that he deserves a little more respect than all this knee-jerk Sage bashing everytime somone disagrees with an answer of his.

Not all criticism is knee-jerk bashing. Simply put, his level of performance is beneath a level that many people expect. He puts out a few pieces of advice in each issue of dragon. Those pieces of advice should be planned, checked and double checked to make sure they are in line with the rules. Do I expect them to be perfect? No. Do I expect them to be better than they have been? Yes.

I've seen a large sample of work that Skip has contributed to over the many years that he has been involved with D&D. Some of the stuff he has been involved in has been brilliant. I can think of more than a few things where I would turn to him for creative advice if I could. Unfortunately, his most well known service - Sage advice - calls upon skills that are not amongst his strength.

 

[AuraSeer]

But he doesn't, since he takes a size penalty.

You're right, I overlooked that.
The halfling gets -4 for size, and +4 for wielding a two-handed weapon. So he and the human end up with the same chance to resist a disarm, despite the human's advantage of size. (Longer arms should give the human more leverage, but the suboptimal placement of his hands prevents him from fully applying that leverage.)

I'll weasel a bit by pointing out that the halfling gets his +1 size modifier on this attack roll, so he still comes out ahead slightly.

But the damage is the same.

The halfling's average damage is higher over the course of a long combat, since he has a +1 attack bonus from size. But the average damage per successful hit is identical.

No, in this case the halfling actually does more damage per hit, as long as the characters have at least 14 Strength. Remember he's using a two-handed weapon, which lets him apply 1.5x his Strength bonus. The human is using a one-handed weapon (in two hands), so he only gets 1x.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, in this case the halfling actually does more damage per hit, as long as the characters have at least 14 Strength. Remember he's using a two-handed weapon, which lets him apply 1.5x his Strength bonus. The human is using a one-handed weapon (in two hands), so he only gets 1x.

One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his or her Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls.

They deal the same average damage per hit.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unfortunately, rule management and research are not amongst his strengths ... and two of the most important aspects of giving advice (along with the ability to be blear and concise).

I've always thought an inability to be blear is one of my own biggest weaknesses.

-Hyp.

 

[MerakSpielman]

I've always thought an inability to be blear is one of my own biggest weaknesses.

-Hyp.

I'm not sure what you mean by that... could you elucidate?

[/irony]