I understand Sage Advice is considered an official errata for D&D for the purpose of RAI, but are the rulings therein the official stance of Adventurer's League D&D rulings? I'm happy for the crossbow expert clarification, but I'll be immensely annoyed if I ever have to deal with a dude who drops prone to get Lucky (dis)advantage.
This is going to get messy...
The official stance of Adventurers League is that the DM's decision at the table is final for the purpose of that play session. There is a question in the FAQ about where to find 'official' advice on the game rules, and the AL response is that AL participants can contact Game Support (wizards.custhelp.com) to get official clarifications of the D&D rules. Sage Advice is not mentioned at all.
An AL DM is certainly welcome to use Sage Advice as a source to clarify unclear rules, but it is not required, at least in part because Sage Advice does not make rulings taking the specific rules of AL into account, so not every Sage Advice ruling may be applicable to AL. (I'm not aware of any such issue with the first three articles, but the possibility exists; if, for example, the Sage should cover crafting magic items or gaining renown with multiple factions at the same time, neither of which is allowed in AL.)
Also, be aware that Lucky requires the use of a luck point to roll the extra die, and you only get three of those per long rest. It's not like a character with Lucky can steamroll an entire adventure with it.
--
Pauper
And for a somewhat different take on the issue:
When you are playing AL, you are assumed to be playing DnD, and using the official WotC rules provided. (except as modified by the ALPG and ALFAQ)
AL DMs are empowered to make rulings in grey areas or where required by the rules, but are expected to follow the rules of the game whenever possible.
The Sage Advice column is an official WotC source for clarifying and explaining what the rules of DnD actually are. So those *are* the WotC approved Official DnD rules. Since AL assumes you are playing DnD by the official WotC rules provided.... you should be following the Sage Advice. (Except when it conflicts with the ALPG or ALFAQ)
The recent Sage Advice, for example, is not provided as his ruling, nor a suggestion, nor some new playtest rules.... it is provided to clarify what is written in the PHB. As always, DMs are normally free to take or leave or modify any rules they do or do not wish to use. Except AL DMs are expected to follow the rules whenever possible.
Nevvur wrote:
Ok, so it's one of those specific beats general cases. The PHB is the general rule, and SA is effectively the PHB. ALPG rules are specific, and override the PHB.
Honestly, I don't anticipate anyone actually exploiting the Lucky mechanic, even if it doesn't pack quite the punch I thought (thanks for the analysis). I just don't like the fact it exists.
The biggest exploit a player can make with the lucky feat is the following:
- You roll a nat 20 when you have disadvantage - you roll a lucky die turning your attack into a crit.
- The enemy crits you. You roll a luck die to cancel the crit.
Honestly, that is the most broken scenario involving the Lucky feat. I have a character with said feat and I have only had each of these scenario's happen once apiece.
Nevvur wrote:
Nevvur wrote:
SAGE ADVISE IS NO...err..oops....oh.. wait no need to shout Pauper already covered the sage advice is just another source of clarification bit.
And get to reuse my previous post in a different thread, lazy mans dream
As a DM I generally rule any attempts at self-hinderance ONLY in order to get some mechanical advantage as a "bag of rats" violation. Donning a blindfold because it will allow you to use lucky without a good Combat/Roleplaying reason. Nope.
Closing your eyes to fight the medusa, still cool. Doing a blindfolded archery contest so you can use lucky, also cool (cooler if you also face the other way and stand on one leg
).
Considering that Jeremy Crawford himself recently tweeted that he doesn't actually enforce the 'need a hand to reload your crossbow' rule unless he feels he needs to, I think it's pretty clear that Sage Advice is not required for any AL DM.
Not that we actually use Jeremy Crawford tweets around here...ahem...
--
Pauper
I think I may actually try to get him to hold a sign at Gen Con. "I am NOT an AL rules source" On the other hand I really don't wish him the grief that would bring.
Is he likely to be there? Chris Perkins has already indicated he (Perkins, I mean, not Crawford) isn't going.
--
Pauper
I cannot be sure. Would normally consider it likely, but I am not sure how normal a Gen Con it will be for WotC when it comes to D&D, We will have to wait and see.
This question came up after each of the first two Sage Advice columns as well. Sage Advice is rules clarifications, not new rules. Thus, there is nothing that needs to be approved for AL play, because they ARE the rules, and this has been confirmed in the past in the AL Facebook group. But trying to find old comments either there or on these forums is a big pain, so perhaps Robert Adducci or Greg Marks or one of the other main Admins can comment here.
There is no real question of approval, or disapproval and nobody is claiming Sage Advice is somehow not approved for use in AL. The issue always centers on wether Sage Advice is prescriptive; is the Sage Advice clarification/interpretation mandatory for AL DM's? To which the anser is a simple NO.
There are several reasons for this, but chief amongst those are the simple facts that Sage Advice never claims to be "the rules" (actually it claims the total opposite) and that Sage Advice is not written with the AL in mind, which can cause problems. There is nothing stopping the AL Admins from declaring that Sage Advice is indeed a rules source and thus prescriptive, but they have nothing to gain (and a lot to lose) in doing so. The result of all of this is that Sage Advice within the AL is what it has always claimed to be: advice. Usually good advice, important advice and advice with a big reputation attached. Maybe even advice that AL DMs are adviced to take. But not a rules source and not mandatory.
I see SA as clarification of official rules, so they themselves are official rules (PHB-level), so I'd personally strictly follow them, unless they get overriden by a more specific rule.
Better base myself on an official source than make my own ruling, as that reduces the amount of discussion with the players (easier to get the players accept something when I can say "Jeremy Crawford said...").
That's reasonable -- if a DM wants an 'authoritative' rules interpretation, it's harder to get more authoritative than one of the game's designers.
It's a pretty big step to go from 'the DM can use Crawford's column to make rulings' to 'the DM must use Crawford's column to make rulings', especially when the latter statement goes against what Crawford himself has written about the column. imaginaryfriend has pretty much covered all the other AL-relevant points.
--
Pauper
There has yet to be a Sage Advice ruling that in any way conflicts with AL rules.
I agree that it's not "mandatory" (whatever that means...I've yet to see the RAW fun police drag a DM away in chains...) but, in the absence of any conflict, why would you not use Sage Advice rulings in AL play?
If we're valuing consistency and transparency as a way to align player expectations across tables, wouldn't these rules clarifications be the best place to start?
CahPahkah wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Sage Advice is not mandatory. Heck, I am not 100% certain that the AL FAQ is "mandatory" (although it is strongly recommended). It is debatable that certain rulings in the AL FAQ are mandatory, as they cover situations the rules do not cover which can cause issues in the OP environment (eg. the ruling on vampirism/lycanthropy, or the limitations on summoned creatures) - but the majority of the FAQ is simply a clarification of the ALPG, website, and/or PHB.
Sage Advice is helpful, I won't dispute that - but should it ever contradict something in the ALPG, AL FAQ, or AL Website - the AL sources have priority. Even then, Sage Advice is just that - advice. DME is alive and well in 5E. Should a DMs rulings contradict something in Sage Advice - the DMs ruling has priority (assuming of course, their ruling relates to something ambiguous, or something the rules do not cover).
In AL - DME does not however, grant DMs the authority to change the rules, or to ignore rules at their convienience - but gives them incredible flexibility in creating rulings for situations the rules don't cover; moreso than any edition since Wizards gained the rights to D&D.
1) As far as I can tell *NO ONE* has ever said that Sage Advice is a source for AL rules. So arguing otherwise is somewhere between a strawman argument and a waste of effort.
2) While it is true that Crawford has said that the Sage Advice rulings are meant to help the DM not restrict him.... that exact same things is said about all of the rules in the PHB.
3) Crawford has said, several times, that Sage Advice rules are based on "how the rules work, not how I wish they worked"
4) Crawford will also suggest that DMs are free to follow or ignore his clarifications, just like they can follow or ignore any of the rules.
5) AL DMs, however, are *NOT* free to ignore the rules. So remember that bit about "ALPG over-rides Crawford".... this is it. The ALPG says to follow the rules, so when Crawford says you may ignore the rules.... you really can't.
5) ALPG says you are to use the DnD 5th edition rules.
6) Sage Advice is clarifying what the DnD 5th edition rules are.
7) If you are not following the Sage Advice, then you are not following the DnD 5th edition rules, thus you are not following the ALPG.
The dynamic at play is... a rule is in the PHB, a rule we as ALPG players and DMs have to follow. But people read the rule different ways, and so there is uncertainty as to what the 'real rule' is. Crawford comes out and tells us "This is the rule in the PHB:........." Now we all *know* what the rule in the PHB is, and can follow it as directed by the ALPG. Once you know what the PHB rule is, and you still choose to ignore it, you are not playing with the DnD 5th edition rules, and you are not following the ALPG.
Crawford: Today's Sage Advice didn't change the rules. It explained how the ammunition property has been meant to work all along.
Crawford: But in Sage Advice, I explain how the game works, not how I wished it worked.
Crawford: This new incarnation of Sage Advice focuses on the rules of the game, especially on how to interpret them when they aren’t clear.
Crawford: Just as the rules do, the column is meant to give DM's tools for tuning the game according to their taste. (emphasis mine)
Kalani wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Rules and rulings aside, maybe it was a huge mistake for them to re-use the name, Sage Advice, seeing as how some people want to take the word "Advice" in the title too literally.
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Undrhil wrote:
Lucky explanation doesn't bother me. My players and I enjoy situations of that sort, and the stories and jokes that come with them.
I've always ruled the Handbow thing as Crawford suggests, but I have friends that like the "fan the hammer" fantasy. Initial impressions on the mechanics interactions of dualbow suggest that I'd need to restrict shield use and allow a single disarm attempt to affect both handbows (as was stated above, there's no effective difference in attacks.)
I agree with Coredump, JC is explaining how the game works. Until the ALPG has a specific rule counter to something JC says in Sage Advice, I would fully expect AL DM's to use the interpretations cited.
Further, dual handbow was never an issue. The issue was for Shield + Handbow.
I think they should take the advice when possible; however, I wouldn't expect DMs to know the Sage Advice rulings.
I guess I just expect a bit more from AL DMs when it comes to staying on top of stuff like that.
In all fairness, it's a hobby. It's up to the individual to invest more or less time into the hobby. However, I don't think it's necessarily right to expect a high degree of investment. I do think that they should know the printed rules and be willing to learn and adjust rulings as they gain experience. Beyond that, I don't expect them to visit wizards.com to do "homework" on rules.
Oh, as a DM I will KNOW the clarifications from Sage Advice, and I will generally even use them. But that will be by choice and not because I have to, and definately not because of anyones expectations. It is exactly because it is a choice that I will have read them, analysed them and determined if they were right for me.
And I will keep reminding all DMs that currently Sage Advice is advice and only advice. Usually good advice and advice you are probably advised to take, but its stil a choice to do so. Don't let anyone badger you into it, make up your own mind without paying too much attention to the people in threads like this one that think they know.
And yeah, that includes me
imaginaryfriend wrote:
My main concern is for player builds, if it's legal then it is legal. I wouldn't tolerate a DM telling me that I couldn't use a build because he has a different interpretation of the rules.
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I have no problems with players having expectations. As long as they also expect to be disappointed now and then. And no, 9 out of 10 times I will not bother to make a big deal out of it at the table if one player starts waving around printouts. Them breaking Wheaton's Law is no reason for me to worsen the experience for the entire table. I've been doing this long enough that I can manage things a little more subtly than that.
If I do my job right the player will even walk away thinking they "won", and I am cool with that (and will have gained a good bar story for the fellow judges )
My bottom line remains: its a DMs choice to use or not use Sage Advice. Just like it is a players choice to turn D&D into an adversarial game..or not. In my experience actively working at creating a negative reltionship with your DM rarely pays dividends, nor does fostering negativity in you players as a DM. But I guess some people just prefer it that way.
There are two sides to the coin though, a DM shouldn't handwave stuff like that because it's essentially a character buff. Other people have come to the table with builds that they've made within the scope of the allowed rules, handwaving away restrictions is as much a slight against players as not allowing them to use something that is allowed.
Not only that, but altering rules also gives players an inaccurate representation of what's allowed, basically the root cause of the "But my previous DM let me do X" scenario.
Unlike its immediate predecessors (3.X and 4E) - 5E was designed to maximize DME. With that in mind, many rules in the game were intentionally designed to give DMs freedom to interpret those rules, and/or make rulings.
Case In Point: Stealth
Was intentionally left vague, to allow DMs to interpret the situation. During R&D, the dev's decided the alternative would be a rule for every possible corner case - and so decided that this rule (like many others) should be left to DM interpretation of the scene.
abanathie wrote:
Ravix wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Oh I wasn't wanting to startin an Edition War.... Especially in light of the fact that I see merits in each edition and like them all for different reasons. I was simply saying that one of the R&D decisions was to empower DMs because of feedback that was given during the polls/playtest.
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
I concur. DMs being badgered with printouts of official "rulings" and developer commentary is quite common in OP. I believe this is part of the reason why the AL has kept FAQ rulings to a minimum (with the majority of the FAQ being clarification of existing rules rather than new rulings).
That brings back memories, Pauper...
I actually found the sage advice articles ruled the same way I rule it already at my table. Even still, while I personally will use the SA column (as a lot of players will expect it) - my previous comments were simply to stress the fact that SA is not "AL official/required" and for players to still expect table variance (even on situations covered in SA)
I agree -- the ruling on Lucky isn't a problem for me, and I'll use it at my table. Just because I have a list of Recommended Rulings doesn't mean I feel like I have to come up with a unique ruling for every situation -- there are a good number of Sage Advice rulings I don't even mention in the Recommended Rulings, and a DM is welcome to use the Sage Advice rulings if she chooses. Heck, I say as much in the intro post in the Recommended Rulings thread.
But just because a DM can use Sage Advice doesn't mean she's required to -- just because Sage Advice contains the 'official interpretations' doesn't negate both Sage Advice's and the Player's Handbook's exhortations to the DM to make her own interpretations to make the game work better at her table.
--
Pauper
Kalani wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
I just want to be clear... all of you talking about how 'its up to the DM' and the DM gets to change the rules...
You would have no problem with a DM that allows Crits to be triple damage?
You would have no problem with a DM that says you only get 1 grapple per action?
You would have no problem with a DM that says you can have a pet 5-headed dragon?
You would have no problem with a DM that says you can't use a quarterstaff one handed? and can't use it with Polearm master?
etc?
I find it very confusing to have Kalani and Pauper telling me that DMs are allowed to ignore whatever rules they want at their table.....
And can we *PLEASE* stop with the "Badgering" strawman argument... no one is suggesting that is okay. Just like I don't want players being jerks with the PHB either. But if a DM gets a rule wrong from the PHB, do you really think a player should never say anything about it?
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Sage Advice is not the rules, it's an official explanation on how the rules work.
There is no choosing to use Sage Advice or not, it literally just explains how the particular facet of the game functions.
You can't disallow Sage Advice any more than you can say a character can't roll ability scores in AL. It's literally the rules and at no point in time is there a point where you can argue if it is or is not.
I can understand your argument for not wanting something to be waved in front of DMs, but that doesn't change the fact that it's here and it's now. Unless Crawford/WotC changes it's mind, Sage Advice is essentially binding errata that removes table variance.
Moving on to personal opinions, I think that table variation of rules negatively affects an OP and like that WotC has decided to clarify predominate issues.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Ravix wrote:
abanathie wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Errata are changes to the rules, Sage Advice explains how the rules work.
I still don't quite understand how you think there can be arguments against this.
Can you point to the place in the Adventurers League Players Guide that tells you to read and follow Sage Advice?
As a DM, until I see it in the ALP that DMs must use Sage Advice - I will take it as advice only and use it where it makes sense. I like the idea of printing out the articles to use as reference, but until it's in the ALPG it's not an official rules source.
So far, nothing in the actual articles do I completely disagree on except the crossbow feat. To me, the crossbow feat was intended to be used with a one-hander and hand crossbow - to stab with a rapier and follow up with another crossbow shot. I consider getting the crossbow shot after having just fired a crossbow to be an unintentional quirk, but that's the way the rule works. Requiring a hand free goes against the intent of the feat and basically makes it so it only works after having fired the same hand crossbow (and no other weapon) and if that was the intention then that was the way it should have been written.
The only other thing that Jeremy Crawford has written is on the Tweet side of Sage Advice (not an actual article) regarding cross-class paladins and smiting with non-paladin slots - which goes directly against the RAW (which says paladin spell slot) and creates a huge power imbalance for pure spellcasters that dip 2 levels into Paladin (Bard/Paladins getting the best deal ever). However, since it was a tweet I take that as he made an error unless he actally writes an article about it.
shivafang wrote:
This is wall of texty, so I'm going to bold the key points to make it easier to skim...
Kalani wrote:
They have specifically stated that paladins can use spell slots of any kind of cast their spells, including divine smite. Even the warlock spell slots that are regained with short rests. You're incorrect.
It does say Paladin Spell Slots; I would have to agree that it smite only applies to paladin spells per RAW. Now, someone may have tweeted that you can interchange spell slots; however, that doesn't change the wording in the PHB. Until WotC releases an errata, the PHB ruling is just as valid, if not more valid, than a tweeted ruling. In the past, Mike Mearls made tweets that were clearly against the RAW. There is a possibility that mistakes were and still can be made on Twitter, Facebook or any other social media site.
In addition, I'm not going to take the word of a player that someone tweeted a clarification that contradicts the PHB. One, it assumes that the player is telling the truth; which in most cases, I do assume that they are telling the truth. B, it assumes that the developer has taken a careful look at the rules before tweeting a response. Something that hasn't happened in the past and might happen in the future. Now, if the clarification takes the form of an official published article, like Sage Advice, I would be more inclined to take that ruling. Why? Articles tend to be better vetted for potential oversights by WotC than developer tweets.
Ravix wrote:
The point is that regardless of the status of Sage Advice versus the rules, Crawford himself has repeatedly written that the rules don't drive D&D, the DM does.
This is the likely source of Coredump's assumption that I'd allow a DM to rule that longswords do 5d20 slashing damage and that every sorcerer can have a 5-headed pyrohydra as a familiar. And in a home game, these are patently true statements -- a home game DM can do whatever she wants.
AL expects its DMs to follow the rules in the published rules sources; I won't argue that point. Here's what happens if a DM doesn't follow the rules:
- That DM isn't asked to run games anymore in a store or other public location.
- Characters from that DM's table can be required to be rebuilt when playing at other AL tables.
If you're going to say that an AL DM *has* to do something a certain way, then it's a fair question what the penalty is if the DM fails to do that thing. In the case of not using Sage Advice rulings, the answer is 'nothing' -- nobody from the AL Police is going to show up and revoke the game's AL status because the DM doesn't agree with how Jeremy Crawford describes how the Lucky feat is supposed to work.
That is what I mean when I say that Sage Advice isn't required -- because nothing is going to happen to a DM who chooses not to use the Sage's interpretations.
--
Pauper
Because these take some digging to find on the Wizards web site…
Sage Advice Articles
- Philosophy Behind Rules and Rulings (February 26, 2015)
- The Rules of Spellcasting (March 23, 2015)
- The Ability Check (April 30, 2015)
- Feats (May 18, 2015)
If I remember, I'll continue to update this list as new articles get published. When claiming an article says some thing or another, it's polite to quote and link to your source.
Things I found interesting on this read-through:
The word "official" does not exist on any of the web pages for these articles. The first article ("Philosophy…") states that there will be errata for the core rulebooks, and that the errata will "[focus] on straightforward corrections: cutting extraneous words, adding missing ones, and clarifying things that are unclear." To me, this strongly implies that Sage Advice is not considered an official rules source in the sense that the Player's Handbook is an official rules source.
The advice on how cantrips scale is that they scale with character level, not [merely] class level. From the More Spellcasting Questions section at the bottom of the The Ability Check article:
"If a character has levels in more than one class, do the character’s cantrips scale with character level or with the level in a spellcasting class? Cantrips scale with character level. For example, a barbarian 2 / cleric 3 casts sacred flame as a 5th-level character."
The Magic Initiate feat is discussed here. My interpretation is that the character simply learns that spell. If it's one the character could learn for her class, then it becomes a regular spell the character knows and can prepare as usual.
Those articles are more recent than the ones I was referring to (which were written in 2012 and 2013 iirc)
I was not aware that similar articles had been released this year (goes to read)
TheBreen wrote:
I generally think of it as Magic Initiate gives you an additional, reserved 1st level slot that can only cast the spell you chose with the feat. The spell is added to your spells known/prepared (because it's always available).
You can then cast it as normal (using the correct ability score). Because that's the only way that makes sense, because I generally don't think the designers were building in 'gotcha' moments.
The Sage Adivce ruling basically says that you gain an additional known spell if the Magic Initiate class and your spellcasting class are the same, and you still gain the ability to use the Magic Initiate spell once per day at the lowest level without expending a slot.
So, a Warlock would definitely come out ahead with the feat. They would gain one additional known spell to choose from on a daily basis. A wizard would come out ahead, just slightly less. They could prepare the Magic Initiate spell for that day but could only cast it once per day, at the lowest level, if they didn't prepare it for the day. If a Warlock or Wizard used the feat to get, let's just say, a Bard spell and cantrips, then the spell isn't added to the list of known spells, even if the spell would normally appear on the Warlock or Wizard class list.
Hmm so cantrips scale with character level. And multiattack scales with class level..?
Interesting design choice...
Its a good thing casters get so little love in the rest of the game...wait....oh nevermind
You mean extra attack right? Multiattack is something those awesome monsters get...
Ainulindalion wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
So basically, if a Bard learns Hex using Magic Initiate, they're only able to cast it once per day?
That feels rough.
With regard to the Wizard and cure wounds, I don't think it really hurts anything - a wizard isn't super likely to have a high WIS or CHA, at least not normal spellcastery high levels of it. Sure, they could blow all their slots on Cure Wounds, but why would they? That just makes them a crappy cleric/druid/bard. They're a wizard. Sure, a 1d8+1 or +2 once per day, or even twice, might be nice in an emergency, but Shield is more likely to conserve HP better, at least for the wizard.
TheBreen wrote:
"You learn that spell. You can cast it at its lowest level. Once you cast it, you must finish a long rest before you can cast it again."
"You learn that spell and can cast it at its lowest level. Once you cast it, you must finish a long rest before you can cast it again."
These two quotes mean the exact same thing, via rules of the English language.
Pauper wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
Ainulindalion wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Wow I hadn't heard about the Magic Initiate thing until just today. That's a very strange exception to make in my opinion. The rules for multiclass spell slots would allow you to cast any spell you know, hence why I always thought it was to be seperate and that you couldn't cast it with your spell slots. This exception is very confusing...
reddaemon wrote:
abanathie wrote:
I should probably point out that a similar discussion happened on the Campaign Staff FB group. The general consensus is that Sage Advice is not required. This is especially true once you consider the fact that the goal is to keep the number of AL Rules Sources to a minimum.
One of the admins (Clair Hoffman; Associate Content Manager) weighed in on the discussion with the following statement:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
abanathie wrote:
I honestly prefer my DMs to use the Sage Advice rules as it creates a more consistent ruling across all tables at my store. With that being said, there is a difference between my personal opinion and the official stance by the campaign staff.
The Official Stance (at present) - is that only the ALPG, AL Website, and AL FAQ are "official" rules sources (outside the published books). Sage Advice and JCs twitter feed are very useful (and recommended) sources, but to quote a certain pirate - the AL considers such sources "more of a guideline really".
imaginaryfriend wrote:
As I said, the issue is currently being debated by the Campaign staff (with only one admin weighing in to date). I expect a more official clarification will be released once the outcome of said debate is determined.
I suspect the official stance to be something to the following:
- SA is not an official rules source for AL. Despite this, it is an excellent resource, and DMs are welcome to use it at their tables.
Kalani wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
I'd wager there is more to gain than to lose by including them as a rules source. Consistency is something AL needs more of not less, much more so when a Developer is the one providing that consistency.
Ravix wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Kalani wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
abanathie wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
abanathie wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
If there is one quote from the articles theBreen linked above that I can get behind, it is this one:
Philosophy Behind Rules and Rulings wrote:
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Why does everyone keep calling Sage Advice a rules source? The information given in it only clarifies and explains the rules of the PHB, nothing else. Sage Advice is integral to understanding the PHB. It is not the Unearthed Arcana articles or the EE Player's Companion, which give new rules, and do need to be specifically allowed or disallowed in the Guide or FAQ. But there are no new rules given in Sage Advice, so it cannot be a rules source, therefore it does not need to be listed in the Player's Guide as an allowed source before it can, and should, be used.
Pauper wrote:
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
RCanine wrote:
shivafang wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Actually - the way I read the feat evoked an image of a pirate with a pistol and scimitar. Attack with your scimitar and then fire the pistol as a bonus action. As this is pre-gunpowder replace pistol with hand xbow and it captures the same imagery.
The concept does not evoke a combo that can be used every round - but rather, once per xbow - to finish off a wounded enemy.
As such - the problem is not the feat or the ruling - but rather the incongruity between design intent and how players wish to use the feat (as a spam able combat option). This is a side effect of player expectations in a post-MMO world (attack sequence, reset/cool down, rinse, repeat)
To spam it - you need to have a hand xbow and nothing else. Otherwise it's a fire and forget ability (which seems intended).
The player would then stow the xbow and either draw another one every 2nd round (until running out of loaded xbows) or draw a second weapon and fight using twf
This interpretation is consistent with the language regarding a "loaded" hand crossbow. The fact that it can be loaded as part of the attack action is only relevant if you have a free hand. Were it not for the fact that you can also fire a preloaded xbow - that line would be irrelevant
shivafang wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I see Sage Advice as impartial, and from that viewpoint would have little problem with it gaining more official status where it now has none. However. I also see Sage Advice as pretty much uninformed as to what rules interactions can turn problematic in organized play. Which for me means that Sage Advice would need to be vetted by people that ARE knowledgable in that area. Since those people do not seem to have nor desire to commit to such a vetting process, I think we will make do with what we have.
And no, such a vetting process would not be easy, unless it came without specific commitment. A "we will get to it when we get to it" would work, but likely be unacceptable to a lot of people.
shivafang wrote:
abanathie wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
shivafang wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Kalani wrote:
abanathie wrote:
abanathie wrote:
[quote="RCanine"]
abanathie wrote:
Yes. It is plausible for a crossbow master to do this with a hand crossbow (other crossbows not so much). However, that's what feats are for. To represent abilities beyond the scope of ordinary kin.
The feat is not called crossbow master however. It is called crossbow expert. While I would have little problem allowing a L16+ character with the crossbow expert feat and archery style to "one hand reload" or someone with a hook and pulley gizmo to achieve the same results - the rules don't support that at this time (but may provide such options eventually).
As someone who is a novice archer - and who has access to crossbows - letting someone fire it once every 6secs is generous to begin with.
Even with a recurve - my firing rate is about one shot every 10-30secs. Experienced archers with their compound bows take almost as long (but are far more accurate).
imaginaryfriend wrote:
abanathie wrote:
shivafang wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
True - I wont dispute the fact that in archaic times, there may have been techniques which increased the firing rate. That wasn't my main point however. My main point is the fact that some of these "expert" tricks that we talk about are quite plausible, but not yet expressed in the rules. The fact that they are plausible provides the possibility that a future product will introduce said rules that allow such tricks to be performed. Take for example how many different archery-related feats were created in 3.5.
Heck, even implausible (or impossible) tricks may be introduced in future products - such as a feat/spell/class ability/etc that allows you to fire arrows around a 90 degree corner (because magic), or one that allows you to richochet arrows off solid objects and still hit your target (reliably).
Pauper wrote:
While I don't want to start an argument - I should clarify that my earlier comment is based on a multitude of complaints, comments and suggestions you have made across a half-dozen or more threads in the past few weeks.
I apologize if I was misunderstanding your intentions - however I have heard very few positive comments from you and a lot of antagonism toward the campaign staff and AL in general. Criticisms to such a degree that I question if organized play and/or AL is a good fit for you.
Kalani wrote:
Again - I apologize for any misunderstanding only part. It's so easy to read more antagonism in a post than the author may have intended - due to the nature of the written word and the associated difficulty in conveying tone.
abanathie wrote:
Kalani wrote:
RCanine wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
For those folks who think that 'real life' would preclude dual-wielding hand crossbows and loading one with the hand that's holding the other, Google 'balestrino crossbow' -- it's a real-world hand crossbow (also referred to as an 'assassin's bow') that dates from 17th-18th century Italy (or in some sources, 15th-16th century Spain). It's not a tiny crossbow with a pistol grip (as many modern hand crossbows are), it's basically a tube that can be fired with a thumb-switch.
http://www.todsstuff.co.uk/crossbows/balestrino-crossbows.htm
I could certainly see holding that in three fingers while using the forefinger and thumb to operate the screw on the other crossbow and load it. It might be awkward, but certainly no more awkward than a person unfamiliar with melee weapons trying to wield a longsword and dagger at the same time. An 'expert' might be able to do it quite efficiently.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
randl wrote:
randl wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani wrote:
It strains credibility but is plausible. Characters such as Hawkeye, Green Arrow or Robin Hood can fire a longbow 1/sec (with no loss of accuracy). Winching/levering a windlass and firing it every 2 secs - plausible. Not IRL but in an RPG.
Edit: I looked up a similar weapon: the Romanian steel crossbow. In 30 secs it fired twice and got one kill shot. It compared against the Chinese repeating xbow which fired 20x Scoring 7 hits. One of those hits pieced chain and dealt a glancing blow (the others failed to injure the target).
This was tested in deadliest warrior ep19 (Vlad vs Sun Tsu)
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper I was using those characters as examples of what epic level characters might be able to accomplish (L17+). Even then I draw the line at Legolas defying gravity. Those rocks did not fall at 9m/sec/sec. There is no way he could move fast enough to outrun gravity without magic.
What he did in LotR however was examples of high level play (L11-16) including when he soloed that elephant thing.
That still only counts as one!
Edit: I see your point, but I think my point about the limits of cinematic play stands, too -- if Legolas could do the things he's depicted as doing while being lower than epic tier, then players who want 'cinematic play' would argue their characters should be able to do the same.
I think the characters in the movie are depicted as higher level than they are in the book -- I think I mentioned in another thread the famous early Dragon magazine essay "Gandalf Was A Fifth Level Wizard!" -- but I doubt either Tolkien or Jackson was considering D&D when making their respective works. All that sort of speculation is done by fans like us, after the fact.
--
Pauper
Well, regardless of other Sage Advice clarifications, when it comes to hand crossbows and a free hand to load, that is taken care of in the new errata released today.
I expected the stealth errata from Sage Advice to be officially errata'ed; however, I didn't expect the errata to come out this soon.
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
Because the next print run of the PHB will be updated with all the errata? And when people start showing up at games with the new printing, their copy supercedes all previous printings. So people with older books will have to use the errata to be legal.
Also, since the AL Admins rarely come here to see the issue with Sage Advice, and since this issue does not seem to come up on the AL Facebook page, maybe they do not feel it is enough of a pressing issue to add it to the FAQ. Hopefully it will be added to the Season 3 Player's Guide by WotC, and then it will no longer be an issue.
It should be noted that some of these errata will themselves likely cause confusion in AL. Example:
"Class Features (p.164): You gain the starting equipment of your first class only."
It seems obvious that the intent of this errata is to clarify that, when you take a second class, you don't get the starting equipment for that class the way you do when you take a class at first level. However, in AL, if you retrain your starting class, you do get the starting equipment for that class (and lose the starting equipment from your original class).
I doubt this will be controversial, but if any errata contradicts an AL rule, the AL rule takes precedence in Adventurers League.
--
Pauper
Sage Advice is not errata -- as noted with the release of an actual errata document for the Player's Handbook.
Sage Advice can be a useful and helpful resource for the DM. It is not required for use in AL. Errata is required for use, because it's a modification to an allowed rules source, but a DM who can't get the errata document or the edited Basic Rules herself should be able to get it from her store coordinator or other AL resource.
--
Pauper
Pauper wrote:
The need for sage advice to be an official rules source is still non existant.
Sure, things from sage advice may turn into errata at which point they become the rules. Up to that point. It is and will remain advice that can, but likely should not, be ignored.
I for one am happy with the errata
imaginaryfriend wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Kalani: upvoted.
I'll consider that my response to abanathie's reply to me.
--
Pauper
Let me specify: I do not see a need for Sage Advice to be come a rules source. Plain and simple. I like its current status as, favored but ignorable, advice. I feel that errata work just fine as a rules alteration device.
I am honestly at a loss as to how else I might have meant that..
Kalani wrote:
I think you somehow managed to misinterpret everything I just said lol.
I am not telling people to "leave if they don't like it" - I am simply questioning why some very unhappy people stay when they seem unable to find anything they like about the program, the rules of AL, the staff, etc.
I am not even referring to anyone specific (in this thread or others). I am simply talking in general. In fact, my comment refers more to people I have spoken with personally IRL.
The simple truth is; no matter how good the program is, or how well it caters to the majority - there will always be some who are unhappy.
And, if said people's needs/desires cannot or will not be met by the program, I simply question why the don't find a format that fills those desires - either in addition to AL, or as a replacement.
I think it's arrogant and condescending to expect unhappy players to suck it up and play a program they aren't enjoying
I would give the same advice to players in a home game with a DM and/or house rules they did not wnjoy
Kalani wrote:
??? I wasn't insulting anyone. I was saying it would be arrogant on our part (the campaign staff) to expect people to suck it up. I include myself at the top of that list as I made the comment.
I am starting to think you are deliberately twisting my words. That, or you have a very negative filter on.
Rule of thumb when reading my posts: if my posts can be interpreted two or more ways - and some of those interpretations are insulting but others aren't - assume I meant the non-insulting interpretation.
I don't make a habit of insulting anyone. In fact, I find ad hominem attacks useless. I criticize ideas, not people. I also rarely lose my cool on the forums. The few times it happens - I tend to walk away or block the person rather than resort to insults.
abanathie wrote:
abanathie wrote:
Kalani wrote:
We also welcome direct feedback from players via our email, and in person - with many of us passing the feedback up the chain to our RCs and the admins.
In fact - you will get a better response by writing your LC and/or RC than simply venting on a forum as only a handful of us are active here (although those that are make an effort to pass along the forums concerns as well).
I for one make every effort to draw attention to the concerns expressed on this forum - even on topics that I disagree with or have no issue with myself. Why? Because I take my role seriously and don't allow my personal opinion to influence what I bring up to the admins and other coordinators. If there are concerns - I raise them with my superiors.
Kalani wrote:
I was generalizing. In fact, when speaking of posters on this forum (and other arenas) I tend to generalize as a rule. If I was referring to you specifically, I would have named you in my response to avoid misunderstandings.
My post was general as the suggestion applies to everyone equally. For best results - speak to your local or regional coordinator(s)
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Not exactly. Sage advice explains or clarifies the rules as intended.
Errata makes direct changes to the rules as written. As these changes will be stealth added to future printings, players must use the errata else they will have two different rule sets at the same table.
Coredump00 wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
I personally find it amusing how people convienieny forget what was said in Sage Advice 1 (the column which explained its entire premise) - that it is just a guide and not rules. It also stated that errata would be forthcoming and to basically not confuse the two lol
imaginaryfriend wrote:
I think it's funny how some people label Sage Advice as just a Rules As Intended when the first article says it will tackle the Rules As Written and As Intended and extending an explaination for the reason for going with an As Intened interpretation.
. I have been and will keep saying that it's advice, not rules
Also, quite important, I use all advice from Sage Advice as a DM. Just the reason why I use it is different. Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
abanathie wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Pauper wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
Are DMs required to use SA?
No. It is not considered a rules source in AL. It is a guideline which helps DMs to make fair and consistent rulings.
Are DMs allowed to use SA?
Yes, with one caveat. While SA does not add any rules to the game, should a SA ruling contradict an official AL ruling from the FAQ or ALPG - the official ruling must be used.
Are DMs Encouraged to use SA?
Yes. I cannot think of any member of the campaign staff which would say otherwise. If all AL DMs used the advice presented in the SA column, rulings would become that much more consistent from table to table. Furthermore, new and existing players may come to expect SA rulings as the default ruling. As such, while DMs are allowed to deviate from this baseline, the SA rulings will eventually be considered the baseline/default ruling.
This about sums up my opinion on the matter, which happens to coincide with the general consensus of the campaign staff.
The "official" stance (as of this moment)
- SA is not an "official" rules source
- We do not consider SA a necessary resource. A recommended one yes, but not a required one.
- We do not want to make it a rules source as DMs have enough of these to keep track of already (Errata, ALPG, website, FAQ).
- We do not wish to remove DM agency, or limit their ability to make rulings at their table (except where necessary).
- If SA was required, it would force DMs to rule according to the SA articles. While ideally we would like all DMs to rule in a similar fashion, we do not want to remove DM agency in this issue.
- SA does not take AL into consideration with any of the rulings made. It is theoretically possible that a ruling made may have undesirable consequences in AL, or may contradict an official AL ruling.
- Some SA rulings may assume the DM has greater agency/empowerment to make tweaks or house rules in order to fit their campaign. AL DMs are not afforded such a luxury.
- We recommend DMs to use it, but we should not require it.
I am paraprhasing in my own words, but that is the general consensus of the internal discussion surrounding SA, with some of those points made directly by admins.
CahPahkah wrote:
RCanine wrote:
I dunno, but saying it is not opaque because it was transparant if only you had been in the right place at the right time...sounds a little strange to me. I think what RCanine is advocating is to include the reasoning with the end result. That way transparancy is maintained after the fact rather than it just existing at a fixed point and place in time.
edit: If you need to assure someone something was not opaque, then it obviously was/is opaque to them?
Kalani wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Coredump00 wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
imaginaryfriend wrote:
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
For all the people who were saying Sage Advice was not official, today's column answers that.
From the Sage Advice Compendium, page 1, under the header Official Rulings:
It should be noted that this same document also incorporates the 'Philosophy Behind Rules and Rulings' text that indicates that Sage Advice isn't meant to override a DM's adjudication:
This column doesn’t replace a DM’s adjudication.
Just as the rules do, the column is meant to give DMs, as
well as players, tools for tuning the game according to their
tastes.
Just because I always love re-repeating myself. Sage Advice is not official............for AL...for now But its good to know it is official everywhere else. Of course everywhere else, unlike AL, also totally allows me as a DM to ignore whatever I darn well please. But, I will stop referring to Sage Advice as just advice. Instead I will from now on use the term, ignorable rulings.
So essentially, nothing has changed, just some new words that will undoubtably lead people to revisit this argument. Good thing I can generally copy and paste my stuff.. or have Pauper type it for me
imaginaryfriend wrote:
RCanine wrote:
RCanine wrote:
So WotC makes an *Official* publication that tells us what the PHB rules work. ALPG tells us to follow the PHB rules. But somene that Official publication can be ignored.... Wut?
The ALPG says to follow the PHB rules, so I read the PHB about Lucky and Disadvantage..... but I am confused. WotC *TELLS* me what the PHB rules are... but I can ignore them?
If you ignore the official WotC publication, then you are *Not* following the rules as written in the PHB...thus you are not following the ALPG.
Person A: The PHB says to roll 2 dice, pick the lowest, then Lucky lets you roll another die and pick one of those two.
Person B: No. The PHB says you roll all 3 dice, and pick whichever one you want.
Person A: How do you know that is the PHB rule?
Person B: Because WotC made an Official Publication that tells us exactly what the PHB rule is.
Please note, the rule is *NOT* from the WotC publication... it is *NOT* a rules source... it is *NOT* a new rule. It is WotC helping you understand what the RAW of the PHB rule is, in case you failed to figure it out on your own. If any WotC publication ever provides a NEW rule, or an alternate/variant rule, or a rule that directly contradicts the ALPG... that would be a different situation.
Pauper wrote:
This circular argument is frustrating. The official stance and the reasoning behind it is as follows:
Sage Advice is not a required resource for AL. It is a recommended resource, however since the rulings in SA do not take AL into account, there is a possibility that a conflict may occur. If a conflict does occur between a SA ruling and an AL ruling, the AL ruling has priority.
Reason 1: - Too Many Rules Sources drive away DMs
DMs have enough rules sources to track, each located in multiple areas (we are working on compiling them for ease of reference). We want to keep the number of rules sources to a minimum - but already we have the ALPG, PHB, AL FAQ, AL website and now errata for DMs to keep track of.
Too many more "required" sources will only drive away potential and existing DMs with little benefit to the program. It is for this reason, we are keeping the "required" Expeditions articles to a minimum and making them relevant for a single season (or if DMs run adventures from that season).
Most articles on the website are like SA. Extremely helpful resources, but not required to run the program.
Reason 2 - SA does not take AL into account when making rulings.
- It is intended for the collective D&D audience to provide a baseline from which each DM or campaign can deviate.
- AL is one such campaign, with its own House Rules (eg, no arakocra, no rolling stats, etc).
- We have no creative input or decision making process when it comes to the SA rulings.
There is a high possibility that eventually, SA will create an "official" ruling which contradicts an AL ruling. If SA was listed as an official rules source, this would cause confusion. While the official stance is that the AL rulings have priority, not all DMs are aware of the hierachy of rules sources - and this will lead to conflict (as some DMs will unknowingly place SA rulings above AL rulings, sending mixed signals to the players).
Reason 3 - Maintaining DM agency and authority
The official stance of AL is to preserve DM agency and empowerment as much as possible. Due to the nature of the program however, certain limitations must be imposed on DMs in order to create the desired play experience. Outside of those limitations, we wish to give DMs as much authority to make rulings at their table as possible. As such, the AL makes every effort not to burdeon DMs with a multitude of official rulings, and to keep such rulings to a minimum (most entries in the FAQ are clarifications or answers which point DMs to existing information, with only a handful being actual rulings).
As such, if a rule can be interpreted multiple ways - we leave it up to DM discretion how best to rule in such a situation, but encourage them to get the "feel for the table", and/or come to a "group consensus" before making such a ruling. Unlike other OP programs, AL tries to be as "hands off" at the table as possible (although some rulings are necessary for balance purposes). The last thing the AL staff wants, is for DMs to be burdeoned with an ever-changing ruleset which changes from month to month as new "errata" to the program comes out.
In conclusion: SA is a Valuable and Recommended Resource
But it is not a required source. There is a difference.
Coredump00 wrote:
Kalani wrote:
I too encourage DMs to use SA to aid them in making rulings.... Heck, I also encourage them to use JCs rulings on sageadvice.eu, but strongly discourage DMs from using Mikes rulings on that same site (he is notoriously inacurrate and is often contradicted by JC - the rules guy).
With that being said, there is a major difference between encouragement and requirement.
This thread is not about whether we should encourage SA, but whether SA is required. The official stance for the indefinite future is "No, it is not required - it is encouraged".
Kalani wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Kalani wrote:
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
RCanine wrote:
TheBreen wrote:
Pauper wrote:
RCanine wrote:
Kalani wrote:
CahPahkah wrote:
Sorry, but the note added here solidifies it for me. There's no longer any room for interpretation on whether you should or should not take it as an official stance.
The ALPG, however, can be specific in that it can override any rulings made through Sage Advice which should be taken as general.
So I don't want to discuss the specifics of these rules—if you want to do that, lets necro the threads about them. However.
RCanine wrote:
Ravix wrote:
Enevhar_Aldarion wrote:
So the stance is: "If the AL does not want anything JC puts out on SA to become the rules instantly they need to officially exclude it in the ALPG, a document the AL administration does not produce or control" ?
Its an interesting* point of view.
I will stick with the "You should, but do not have to", its worked for me sofar and there was many a time during both LG and LFR where I wished we had had that.
Maybe more important, as things stand now all views concernign sage advice presented here have no actual impact in play, as there are, to my knowlegde, currently no SA statements that anyone really has issue with. Lets get back to this argument as soon as SA actually makes a ruling that does impact OP/the AL negatively. I am too jaded to think that will not happen, but we may get lucky
* - Interesting in this case may be replaced by other adjectives of your choice.
imaginaryfriend wrote:
I can see the point, but the focus on the ALPG is problematic at best I would love for the AL admins to have actuall control over the ALPG, but currently they do not. So its an unrealistic viewpoint to expect problems with SA to be solved there. I would totally be in favor of WotC adding SA as a favoured ruling resource to the ALPG. Just not as a mandatory one. If after something like a combined 100+ years of organized play experience explaining that SA can cause problems with AL if its a manatory source, that point is still disputed. Well thats also a choice, however disparaging all that experience is also a poor choice.
Another reason not to have a 'you must use Sage Advice' rule in AL -- how would you enforce it?
DM's are welcome to use Sage Advice if they choose to, but they cannot be required to do so. This is true for any home game as well as for AL; the only truly 'official' ruling is the one made by the DM at the table.
--
Pauper
imaginaryfriend wrote:
(The FAQ trumping ALPG was implied, since they don't give AL Admins direct control over it >.> 
)
I can only correct it when I see it, so if I never see it (who cares). I just don't think DMs who disagree with SA (because apparently you can disagree with designers) should get a cop out of letting someone play a character they've created with the literal interpretation of the rules.
(Granted your character should probably stand on more than just a ruling made thus, Paladin/Warlocks aside...)