I had a question recently about how to interpret something in the DMG. The actual thing in the book is not the clearest, which I find to be the biggest flaw in 5E, but I understand they made parts vague such that the DM has wiggle room to do what they please.
But when it comes to RAW, which I try to do in most of my games, I still want to know the absolute correct answer for a question. But if there isn't one in the books, but one of the designers, Mearls or Crawford has answered the question on Twitter or Reddit, do people accept that as RAW, even if their interpretation is just that, an interpretation, which makes it RAI.
If I am a player in AL, and I come to the game and state that Crawford said to interpret this one rule this way, is that acceptable if the rule is vague to begin with?
I'm curious what others do in these situations when there isn't a page, paragraph, and sentence that doesn't explicitly cover the rule you are trying to adjudicate or interpret but one of the designers has chimed in on that rule.
An answer from Jeremy Crawford might be RAW (it is if he says it is), and will usually be the intent of the rules.
Mike Mearls has stated repeatedly that he answers DM questions with what he'd do at his table rather than any kind of official stance, and he and the other WotC staffers have called out specifically that Jeremy Crawford is the "rules guy."
As for what I do, I remember that each group is more in charge of their rules than the guys at WotC are, so I take any vagueries to my group for clarification.
Technically, the official stance is that while Sageadvice and blog posts are rules clarifications and recommendations, there is nothing requiring DMs to follow them. Even in AL, they are not required. Most people do choose to go with the RAI as the designers issue clarifications, however there will always be some people that run their table however they want despite the RAW and RAI.
You should definitely consider clarifications from the Lead Designers on blog posts to be RAI (I wouldn't put tweets in the same category as they have not gone through the editorial process prior to being released). Even still, nothing prevents a DM from doing it their way. I would try to just use as few ambiguous rules as possible if you are concerned about having your character shut down by DM interpretation. You have to choose your battles with rules disputes, just ask yourself if the rule you disagree on is really worth the trouble of a table argument. Often times you can adapt to the DMs ruling and make it work in your favor.
You can consult the sage advice website to gain insight as to the RAW of the rules based on the designer intent.
gamileo wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Following Sage Advice is certainly more RAW than not following it.
The questions answered by Sage Advice are usually things that people in the community couldn't fully agree on and wanted a clarification for, so they are a nice way to finally get a clear answer.
There will always be people that don't agree to them and will say "Bleh, it's not RAW anyway", but when you are looking for a clear answer on how to do RAW, what else should you be using other than Sage Advice (if it isn't clear in the PHB/DMG in the first place)?
Noctaem wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
mellored wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
ArialBlack wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
mellored wrote:
OoftaMeg wrote:
mrpopstar wrote:
Noctaem wrote:
lawrencehoy wrote:
Just because your not a tri-kreen doesn't mean the DM should bend the rules for you...
lawrencehoy wrote:
mellored wrote:
mrpopstar wrote: