D&D (2024) What Spell Sage Advice (& Descriptions) are you afraid won't be "fixed"?

[Willie the Duck]

I'd also like them to revisit the "does Tiny Hut have a floor" ruling.

I'd like them to revisit Tiny Hut in general, but that's probably another thread.

We know that... and Jeremy knows that. But so many people out there never did know that and still constantly asked and asked and asked about all these ridiculous rules scenarios, despite the repeated statements of "It's your game, you can make a ruling that fits your table". A statement that everybody seemingly ignored or just didn't want to hear and thus wouldn't stop asking for clarifications anyway. And as a result... Jeremy would tend to answer the questions as bare-boned as possible. If the rule said something specifically, he told people that what was written down in the book is what it said... even if he (and other people) probably thought by that point the rules could have been written better. But because they had already made a company decision to not write pages upon pages of errata to fix the rules intention of every single thing like they had in 4E... what was written down was what the "official" decision was.

And players could either use that "official WotC decision" if using "official" rules meant that much to them... or they could do exactly what Jeremy and the rest of WotC wanted, and just made up and used rules changes they wanted that made more sense to them and their table-- to Hell with what WotC wrote down in their books.

Unfortunately, and with a grand sigh from all those involved... too many players still went with the former, regardless of how much they disliked the results. Better to use "official" rules that they hated so they didn't have to explain themselves to anyone else, then make their own corrections to rules they didn't agree with and then have to talk to their fellow players to justify their changes.

They would have been so much better off either consistently saying "The DM must make a determination" or frame all SA as "The way I would rule is..." Or, as mentioned, simply state the intent of the rules text and then repeat the 'but you do it as you would find fun' mantra.

I mean, I get it. They put in the books a lot of statements about rulings over rules and making the game your own and such. I can only imagine they thought that would shield them from the RAW-pedantry crowd. But it only works if you are consistent (and even then, I'm not sure it would have worked).

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

We know that... and Jeremy knows that. But so many people out there never did know that and still constantly asked and asked and asked about all these ridiculous rules scenarios, despite the repeated statements of "It's your game, you can make a ruling that fits your table". A statement that everybody seemingly ignored or just didn't want to hear and thus wouldn't stop asking for clarifications anyway.

Jeremy should have kept up the position rather than caving to internet rules-lawyers less than a year into the game release. By releasing Sage Advice wotc legitimized and encouraged toxic rule-lawyers and set them up as a clear audience their products must cater to.

D&D 2024 is clearly moving away from "rulings not rules" and trying to codify everything in RAW, rather than trusting GMs to make reasonable decisions for their tables.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'd like them to revisit Tiny Hut in general, but that's probably another thread.

They would have been so much better off either consistently saying "The DM must make a determination" or frame all SA as "The way I would rule is..." Or, as mentioned, simply state the intent of the rules text and then repeat the 'but you do it as you would find fun' mantra.

I mean, I get it. They put in the books a lot of statements about rulings over rules and making the game your own and such. I can only imagine they thought that would shield them from the RAW-pedantry crowd. But it only works if you are consistent (and even then, I'm not sure it would have worked).

For the most part at the beginning of the SA process, Jeremy did do that quite often. He would reiterate what was written in black and white on the page and say that that was what the book said... or he would say "our intention was..." and give info on what the writing was meant to be implied as (of which many people didn't get that because the English language can be fungible and not everyone's reading comprehension is up to snuff.) But in both cases I remember quite often him ending a lot of these Tweets (which most of Sage Advice got distributed through) with "but your table can make their own decision."

But I do agree that no matter how often he reiterated it, people would still refuse to go along with it. Because (general) people don't want an answer... they want to be RIGHT. And anything less than Jeremy saying "Your interpretation is the correct one" was NEVER going to satisfy a lot of people.

 

[DEFCON 1]

D&D 2024 is clearly moving away from "rulings not rules" and trying to codify everything in RAW, rather than trusting GMs to make reasonable decisions for their tables.

I personally have not seen much yet to agree with your statement here as being categorical fact. Not saying you are wrong... just that I haven't seen enough to believe you are 100% right.

For my money... just because they are talking about the new rules they have written does not mean that the mantra of "Rulings, Not Rules" is out the window. It could be... maybe it is... but it could also just be that nothing is really changing on that front in their opinion, so there's no reason to bring it up in videos about the rules they are including.

It's a 'wait and see' game at this point.

 

[Cadence]

Ok, now roll the saving throw for gold piece number 312.... feels painful.

I was just taking you literally

Something in the middle might be: Worn and carried things like paper, hair, and thin cloth or wood that aren't shielded by a backpack or something similarly protective ignite. Unprotected thicker cloth and wooden objects get a save to avoid igniting.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

D&D 2024 is clearly moving away from "rulings not rules" and trying to codify everything in RAW, rather than trusting GMs to make reasonable decisions for their tables.

I don't think that is remotely true. They're just going to try to reword the rules that have had the most questions asked to Sage Advice. I'm sure that they'll make new mistakes and have new foolish questions, but the idea that your DM should make a call is still 100% going to be the advice given in the DMG.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was just taking you literally

Something in the middle might be: Worn and carried things like paper, hair, and thin cloth or wood that aren't shielded by a backpack or something similarly protective ignite. Unprotected thicker cloth and wooden objects get a save to avoid igniting.

See, now that's the sort of rule I can get behind!

Sorry. My ability to recognize someone trying to be funny is never great, and it gets worse in these kinds of discussions.

 

[cbwjm]

Speaking of magic missile, the nonsense about using one d4+1 damage roll for all the missiles.

That's not actually in sage advice, it was just a tweet which, I think, was followed up by another tweet about rolling for each missile was also fine.

 

[Cadence]

That's not actually in sage advice, it was just a tweet which, I think, was followed up by another tweet about rolling for each missile was also fine.

Tweet about the concentration checks is at:

Do you roll concentration for every instance of damage taken?

D&D Sage Advice ·

www.sageadvice.eu

 

[Hexmage-EN]

D&D 2024 is clearly moving away from "rulings not rules" and trying to codify everything in RAW, rather than trusting GMs to make reasonable decisions for their tables.

I'm glad for that, personally. In practice, "rulings, not rules" often means that individual DMs have to spend time making up common things that ideally should already be in the books they've spent sizeable chunks of money on. I like homebrewing, but 5E leaves the DM to do the heavy lifting way more often than it should IMO.