Sage vs Rules Compendium [Archive] - Wizards Community

Sage vs Rules Compendium [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
ibayboy
02-28-08, 01:29 AM In this corner (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080227a) Sage Advice

vs

The official 'trumps previous rulings' Rules Compendium pg27, says yes, you can tumble during a charge.

So i ask, do the staff actually read their own books? :D
mplindustries
02-28-08, 01:43 AM The sage is not official. Its a web supplement of advice and house rulings, no more or less official than dragon magazine. If they wanted his rulings to be official, they'd create errata about them.

Meanwhile, the Rules Compendium is official. Its not really much of a fight, actually.

And before people come in and say stuff like, "Living Greyhawk uses the FAQ's rulings," let me ask "Do they specifically say they are using the FAQ's rulings?" Because if they do, guess what, thats not official then. You shouldn't need to specify that you follow official rules. It'd be like them specifically mentioning, "Oh, by the way, we use the Fighter out of the Player's Handbook."
ibayboy
02-28-08, 02:10 AM i just wonder why they bother, if its not 'official', not checked, and often not right. How hard can it be. IMHO do it right or don't do it at all.
Tsuul
02-28-08, 03:27 AM Both are "official".

And yet DM trumps them both.

Pick one and be consistent.
solbergb
02-28-08, 07:31 PM Living Greyhawk uses FAQ rulings and Eratta but not Sage Advice, Rules of the Game etc.

As a shared campaign, it lacks a GM, so all campaign "houserules" are mostly defaulted to whatever the FAQ says. There are a handful of internal houserules, mostly due to the structure of a shared campaign, but because they get some WOTC support, they have to stay within the "official" ruleset as much as is practicable. One reason the FAQ may be perceived as "more official" on the boards is that in LG, the campaign was required to use the FAQ but was not required to use other WOTC-publications, web and otherwise. (and there are many players of LG who also post on these boards)

As an example, they can ban a spell, feat, class or PRC, but they can't modify it or override a FAQ ruling on the spell, feat, class or PRC. The one exception to that I remember was the polymorph eratta, they had to go get permission to ignore that until the campaign staff had a plan for dealing with the vast number of druids, master of many forms etc that were out there and would be heavily affected by the rules change.
Merestil Haye
02-29-08, 07:46 AM Living Greyhawk uses FAQ rulings and Eratta but not Sage Advice, Rules of the Game etc.The only problem with this statement is that Sage Advice was the source for the FAQ. There was about a 1-month lag between the publication of Sage Advice and incorporation into the FAQ.

Now, it's a bit slower thanks to 4e.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ibayboy 02-28-08, 01:29 AM	In this corner (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ask/20080227a) Sage Advice vs The official 'trumps previous rulings' Rules Compendium pg27, says yes, you can tumble during a charge. So i ask, do the staff actually read their own books? :D
mplindustries 02-28-08, 01:43 AM	The sage is not official. Its a web supplement of advice and house rulings, no more or less official than dragon magazine. If they wanted his rulings to be official, they'd create errata about them. Meanwhile, the Rules Compendium is official. Its not really much of a fight, actually. And before people come in and say stuff like, "Living Greyhawk uses the FAQ's rulings," let me ask "Do they specifically say they are using the FAQ's rulings?" Because if they do, guess what, thats not official then. You shouldn't need to specify that you follow official rules. It'd be like them specifically mentioning, "Oh, by the way, we use the Fighter out of the Player's Handbook."
ibayboy 02-28-08, 02:10 AM	i just wonder why they bother, if its not 'official', not checked, and often not right. How hard can it be. IMHO do it right or don't do it at all.
Tsuul 02-28-08, 03:27 AM	Both are "official". And yet DM trumps them both. Pick one and be consistent.
solbergb 02-28-08, 07:31 PM	Living Greyhawk uses FAQ rulings and Eratta but not Sage Advice, Rules of the Game etc. As a shared campaign, it lacks a GM, so all campaign "houserules" are mostly defaulted to whatever the FAQ says. There are a handful of internal houserules, mostly due to the structure of a shared campaign, but because they get some WOTC support, they have to stay within the "official" ruleset as much as is practicable. One reason the FAQ may be perceived as "more official" on the boards is that in LG, the campaign was required to use the FAQ but was not required to use other WOTC-publications, web and otherwise. (and there are many players of LG who also post on these boards) As an example, they can ban a spell, feat, class or PRC, but they can't modify it or override a FAQ ruling on the spell, feat, class or PRC. The one exception to that I remember was the polymorph eratta, they had to go get permission to ignore that until the campaign staff had a plan for dealing with the vast number of druids, master of many forms etc that were out there and would be heavily affected by the rules change.
Merestil Haye 02-29-08, 07:46 AM	Living Greyhawk uses FAQ rulings and Eratta but not Sage Advice, Rules of the Game etc.The only problem with this statement is that Sage Advice was the source for the FAQ. There was about a 1-month lag between the publication of Sage Advice and incorporation into the FAQ. Now, it's a bit slower thanks to 4e.