What 5e Sage Advice Answers Do You Want Included/Changed in 5.5?

Cadence

Legend
Supporter
So, a lot of sage advice has accrued over the past 8 years.
Which, if any, of the rulings stick out in your mind as things that should definitely be included in the rules?
Which, if any, of the rulings stick out as being ones that should be swatted down and changed?

----

The one that annoys me most is the ruling on invisibility, that see invisible and the like only deals with the first bullet point in the invisible condition (being able to see them) and not the second (disadvantage). So even if you can see the invisible creature you still get disadvantage trying to hit it and it has advantage trying to hit you.


The one about invisible things still being lit up if they're invisible, but not hurting the invisibility also seems really odd (but I might be convinced on this one).

1661176844237.png
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
I'd like to see less of the RAW interpretation and more of the design notes take on Sage Advice. I want to read what they were thinking in why they defined the rule that way, how it would be used/should work and not that nitpicky BS aspect of whether or not see invisibility explicitly says it removes the advantage/disadvantage aspects of invisibility.
 


Cadence

Legend
Supporter
Each Sage advice is a flaw in term of game design.
Each time the Devs need to make a comment for a rule, it show some flaws in rule writing.
So the actual Sage advices are pretty useful to write the one DnD.
So you would say that everything that's been in a sage advice should get a revision for clarity (at least) in 5.5?
 

Parmandur

Book-Friend
I recall that Jeremy Crawford said several years ago in a Sage Advise livestream with Bart Carroll that he had a working document based on the Sage Advice Compendium of how he would rewrite the core rules.

I fully expect thst everything in the existing Compendium will be worked into the core rulebooks, either whole cloth or as the basis for a rewrite of rules text.
 



What was your biggest eye-roll?
Oh god, I struggle to remember most of it because Sage Advice is routinely so bad (and this isn't a 5E thing, it's a D&D thing - it was even worse in 2E, there they often straight up got the rules wrong). There's the classic horror show of "Melee Attack with a Weapon vs Attack with a Melee Weapon", jesus that was bad. There was a ton of bad stuff around targeting spells that just felt anti-imagination 100% MtG card game bollocks. Barkskin can't benefit from a shield was magnificently dumb. Shield Master was some "technically correct, the best kind of correct" idiocy that didn't make the game better.

Honestly after Shield Master I think a lot of people just said "Ok, whatever, that's just like, your opinion man" to Sage Advice in 5E, which had previously been well-regarded.

Here's a truly amazing one that would make most groups overrule the DM if he said something like that: Can I Revify a killed zombie?
 





Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Change: the ridiculous ruling that a Counterspell can counter another Counterspell. Also, change the ridiculous ruling that you can interrupt your own casting of another spell, cast Counterspell, then resume casting the spell you were doing before.

On a broader note, give spells* at least some form of casting time even if just broad categories e.g. immediate, fast, standard, slow, ritual; and say that spells of the same speed categories must resolve in the order they are cast.

Yes this gives some advantage to Counterspell. That's part of the point; though most of the point is to avoid stupid M:tG-style last-in first-out counterspell fights.

* - and innate abilities etc., for all that.
 

That is ridiculously terrible, I can't believe he writes rules for D&D as a living with a response like that. The only thing I found Sage Advice good for was a laugh. The questions and answers were usually equally dumb.
Sometimes I genuinely wondered if he's taking the piss, but he's soooooo deadpan and super-serious in how he responds to stuff, and so insistent on it that he has me convinced. So he's a master troll if so.

I note that the Revivify thing would make perfect sense as the answer to an MtG question, where process is everything, but for D&D it's just "MAN WHAT?!?!".
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
Oh god, I struggle to remember most of it because Sage Advice is routinely so bad (and this isn't a 5E thing, it's a D&D thing - it was even worse in 2E, there they often straight up got the rules wrong). There's the classic horror show of "Melee Attack with a Weapon vs Attack with a Melee Weapon", jesus that was bad. There was a ton of bad stuff around targeting spells that just felt anti-imagination 100% MtG card game bollocks. Barkskin can't benefit from a shield was magnificently dumb. Shield Master was some "technically correct, the best kind of correct" idiocy that didn't make the game better.

Honestly after Shield Master I think a lot of people just said "Ok, whatever, that's just like, your opinion man" to Sage Advice in 5E, which had previously been well-regarded.

Here's a truly amazing one that would make most groups overrule the DM if he said something like that: Can I Revify a killed zombie?
Am hour of combat to interrupt long rests! Immediately overturned in Oe.

@nefarious interlocutors :p
 

Sometimes I genuinely wondered if he's taking the piss, but he's soooooo deadpan and super-serious in how he responds to stuff, and so insistent on it that he has me convinced. So he's a master troll if so.
I can understand him having some fun considering some of the questions have answers right in the RAW. One person asked if spell "X" was considered an attack, the first sentence of the spell description says that it is. In a case like this I think I'd be hard pressed not to troll.

Taking Sage Advice to Twitter was a horrible idea, the format just sucks...having to read through the same posts quoted multiple times is laborious.

I note that the Revivify thing would make perfect sense as the answer to an MtG question, where process is everything, but for D&D it's just "MAN WHAT?!?!".
Never played MtG more than a few times just not my thing so I can't comment. Common sense should prevail, that the D&D spell is intended for living creatures and doesn't affect undead or constructs. This (and many others) are clear cases just how poorly the core rulebooks are written at in places; an extra sentence or two could have cleared up alot. Grant it that they can never account for everything, but I wouldnt care if the PHB got to 700 pages and cost $200 in 1D&D as long as it cleaned up the format/organization and cleared up little inconsistencies such as this.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top