Sage Advice isn't official like the 3 Core Rulebooks. Nothing beyond them is. Per Jeremy Crawford only a few months ago:
Jeremy Crawford@JeremyECrawford
The official rules of D&D are in the 3 core books. Those rules appear in a shorter form in products like the Starter Set and the free Basic Rules. Any rules that appear elsewhere are optional.
Optional is not the opposite of official. Sage Advice is official clarification on official rules, similar to how errata are official corrections to official rules.
Opposite? No. But it's not official. Saying "official clarification on official rules" is a misnomer. I'd say they're optional clarifications on official rules. "The official rules of D&D are in the 3 core books" and "Any rules that appear elsewhere are optional" are pretty straightforward statements.
A DM can change whatever they want, but if they don't follow a rule in the 3 core books they are changing an official core rule (house rules/homebrew). If they don't follow what Sage Advice says, they're just ignoring optional advice, not changing core rules.
Errata to the 3 Core books are the only things "beyond" them that are in any way official rules, and those errata are few and far between.
Opposite? No. But it's not official. Saying "official clarification on official rules" is a misnomer. I'd say they're optional clarifications on official rules. "The official rules of D&D are in the 3 core books" and "Any rules that appear elsewhere are optional" are pretty straightforward statements.
A DM can change whatever they want, but if they don't follow a rule in the 3 core books they are changing an official core rule (house rules/homebrew). If they don't follow what Sage Advice says, they're just ignoring optional advice, not changing core rules.
Errata to the 3 Core books are the only things "beyond" them that are in any way official rules, and those errata are few and far between.
Again, whether they're optional or not doesn't make them less, or more, official. The Sage Advice Compendium is official content. It's not "optional" in the "this rule is optional, this is one isn't" sense, because it does not contain rules, but rather clarifications regarding rules. Sage Advice (the articles published by WotC, not the tweet-collecting site) is not a source of rules apart from the 3 core books. It's a source of clarification of rules regarding all source books. When Sage Advice says "when the rule for Flummits says to roll two d20s and pick the most grobbly result, that means to roll two twenty-sided dice and pick the highest one", that's not an optional interpretation of the official Flummits rule; that's the official interpretation for the Flummits rule. That's meant to clarify the rule that appears in the rulebook; it's not meant to offer an optional way to play.
We gather your D&D rules questions and occasionally provide official answers to them in the Sage Advice Compendium.
From the document in the page:
Official rulings on how to interpret rules are made here in the Sage Advice Compendium by the game’s lead rules designer, Jeremy Crawford (@JeremyECrawford on Twitter). The public statements of the D&D team, or anyone else at Wizards of the Coast, are not official rulings; they are advice.
I included the second sentence to point out that it didn't use to be there. Jeremy Crawford's Tweets used to be considered official rulings. They no longer are. But the answers in this document are considered official rulings.
I do hear what you guys are saying. The rules suffer from ambiguous wording
In this instance, no they don't. The wording is EXPLICIT that Crossbow Expert applies to spells. You're just hung up on the name of the feat. If the feat wasn't called that, I don't think you'd be having this problem.
I'm sorry but, I don't think you understand what "explicit" means. The wording vaguely hints that spellcasting range attack could be included in this feats abilities if you want to read it that way. If it were explicitly stated to include spellcasting range attacks it would be worded like this:
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose Disadvantage on your ranged weapon or ranged spellcasting attack rolls.
That leaves no room for misinterpretation and that, my friend, is what explicitly stated means.
I do hear what you guys are saying. The rules suffer from ambiguous wording
In this instance, no they don't. The wording is EXPLICIT that Crossbow Expert applies to spells. You're just hung up on the name of the feat. If the feat wasn't called that, I don't think you'd be having this problem.
I'm sorry but, I don't think you understand what "explicit" means. The wording vaguely hints that spellcasting range attack could be included in this feats abilities if you want to read it that way. If it were explicitly stated to include spellcasting range attacks it would be worded like this:
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose Disadvantage on your ranged weapon or ranged spellcasting attack rolls.
That leaves no room for misinterpretation and that, my friend, is what explicitly stated means.
The rules are very clear about what a ranged attack roll is. The Crossbow Expert feat says "does not impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls."
Ranged Attacks
When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance. A monster might shoot spines from its tail. Many spells also involve making a ranged attack.
Crossbow Expert
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
It's pretty explicit. Saying "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose Disadvantage on your ranged weapon or ranged spellcasting attack rolls." would not only be redundant, it wouldn't follow the wording used throughout the rest of the books.
@Tonio, I already mentioned that if Sage Advice answers were better than 50/50 for GOOD rules clarifications I would take them more seriously. In some cases, the answers are great. In the cases that they aren't great, I'll stick to the base rules provided and do my best with it.
If everyone truly believed Sage Advice was the gospel on rules clarification, all the base books could or would be updated to reflect that.
If you want to take Sage Advice to heart that's cool. If you think one man's answers, game creator or not, are infallible compared to the interpretation of literally millions of fans, well...I disagree.
There's so much in Sage Advice that directly contradicts with the rules it's almost funny. There's some interesting stuff in there, certainly, but I'll follow the core rules. If there's something in them that seems unclear to me, I'm capable of coming to my own conclusions based on the ample information throughout the 3 books.
Edit: Though yes, the Compendium is much better than the tweets. Everything that's in the Sage Advice compendium is pretty darn basic, though. Things that are easy to interpret by having an intimate knowledge of the core rules; nothing in there really contradicts with anything in the books. A lot of the tweets do.
@Tonio, I already mentioned that if Sage Advice answers were better than 50/50 for GOOD rules clarifications I would take them more seriously. In some cases, the answers are great. In the cases that they aren't great, I'll stick to the base rules provided and do my best with it.
If everyone truly believed Sage Advice was the gospel on rules clarification, all the base books could or would be updated to reflect that.
If you want to take Sage Advice to heart that's cool. If you think one man's answers, game creator or not, are infallible compared to the interpretation of literally millions of fans, well...I disagree.
You are free to do whatever you want, of course. Nobody has ever claimed otherwise. You can stick with the PHB/DMG/MM, or you can jump off the PHB and into a custom system full of homebrew and house rules, or whatever. How that relates to the Sage Advice Compendium being official or not is unclear, though.
And please don't put words in my mouth, or assume anything about how I choose to run my games simply because you disagree with me. I'm arguing that the Sage Advice Compendium is official, which it is, and your answer is that you'd rather come up with your own clarifications, and then insinuate I'm a sycophant for blindly following a single person against logic and the masses... I have never claimed Jeremy Crawford's answers are infallible, but I'll gladly challenge your claim that his answers aren't agreeable to "literally millions of fans".
There's so much in Sage Advice that directly contradicts with the rules it's almost funny. There's some interesting stuff in there, certainly, but I'll follow the core rules. If there's something in them that seems unclear to me, I'm capable of coming to my own conclusions based on the ample information throughout the 3 books.
Edit: Though yes, the Compendium is much better than the tweets. Everything that's in the Sage Advice compendium is pretty darn basic, though. Things that are easy to interpret by having an intimate knowledge of the core rules; nothing in there really contradicts with anything in the books. A lot of the tweets do.
I hear that a lot... how Jeremy Crawford's tweets are sooo contradictory, they mostly contradict themselves, or the rule books... but besides the Shield Master bonus shove timing issue, nobody really ever presents any examples of all these contradictions.
On a separate, but related note: why is it of paramount importance to follow the rules the designers wrote down, how they wrote them down, but it's almost heresy to listen to their explanations of what they meant when they wrote them? We're talking about the same people. I mean, Jeremy Crawford will say "that rule means exactly what it says, When we wrote 'ranged attack', we meant 'ranged attack', and not 'ranged weapon attack'", and everybody's "oh god, there he goes again, spewing his contradictory nonsense", but Matt Mercer makes drinking potions a bonus action in his game, a house rule, and half the people not only play that way, not only advocate for it, but assume that the rules not mentioning that is an oversight.
Good points, I wasn't launching a personal attack against you. I was pointing out how many people will follow the least logical theoretical conclusion if it benefits them(their character). If you wouldn't be eagerly excited to see an enemy creature employ the same tactic against you, maybe it's not a good RAI fit despite what RAW or SA allow.
How many times have you heard game designers say "working as intended" vs "we made a mistake"?
The reason why people would rather cling to simpler, old rules and argue how they work is easy to answer. It is a simpler base with less open interpretations for everyone to start the discussion with. If someone expands a rule using absolute theoreticals and very niche circumstantial uses, you haven't "clarified" a rule at all. You just made it that much more susceptible to subjective interpretation.
I like rules. I like to follow the rules in the books to the best of my ability. Sure, if I don't agree with it, I'll house rule my own thing (and make sure I stay consistent with it) but I'm big on following rules in all games I play.
When I get to my computer I can search through and find examples for you if you want. Or you can just look at my posts on this forum; half my arguments and rules explanations get "rebutted" by someone saying "no X isn't true because Jeremey tweeted Y."
That's all I was really saying as well. Some fan boy or girl argues a rule not because it makes any sense but, because SA is "official". The original rules are official too, a DM using them over SA isn't house ruling or home brewing. The are using official rules that suit them better.
That's all I was really saying as well. Some fan boy or girl argues a rule not because it makes any sense but, because SA is "official". The original rules are official too, a DM using them over SA isn't house ruling or home brewing. The are using official rules that suit them better.
Not really. The "official rules" are all that appear in official sources. The "official, non-optional rules" are all that appear in the PHB, DMG, and MM, plus their errata and official clarifications. If you ignore an official, non-optional rule, you're in effect houseruling. In the official books (PHB, DMG, MM), there are rules that modify other rules, override them, create exceptions. You can't ignore one of those and claim you're still playing RAW w/o house rules.
And just because you can't find sense in an official rule doesn't mean it makes no sense, it might just mean that fan boy or fan girl you feel so superior to just has a better imagination, is more creative, more adaptable and open minded, and can find ways to make official rules work within their fictional world.
Again, there's nothing wrong with house rules, homebrewing, etc. If you wanna play a game where initiative is determined using your Intelligence bonus instead of your Dexterity bonus, great! If you wanna play a game where all spells require some costly material component which is consumed, awesome! But acknowledge those are house rules, and don't argue as if they're official rules.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Optional is not the opposite of official. Sage Advice is official clarification on official rules, similar to how errata are official corrections to official rules.
Opposite? No. But it's not official. Saying "official clarification on official rules" is a misnomer. I'd say they're optional clarifications on official rules.
"The official rules of D&D are in the 3 core books" and "Any rules that appear elsewhere are optional" are pretty straightforward statements.
A DM can change whatever they want, but if they don't follow a rule in the 3 core books they are changing an official core rule (house rules/homebrew).
If they don't follow what Sage Advice says, they're just ignoring optional advice, not changing core rules.
Errata to the 3 Core books are the only things "beyond" them that are in any way official rules, and those errata are few and far between.
Again, whether they're optional or not doesn't make them less, or more, official. The Sage Advice Compendium is official content. It's not "optional" in the "this rule is optional, this is one isn't" sense, because it does not contain rules, but rather clarifications regarding rules. Sage Advice (the articles published by WotC, not the tweet-collecting site) is not a source of rules apart from the 3 core books. It's a source of clarification of rules regarding all source books. When Sage Advice says "when the rule for Flummits says to roll two d20s and pick the most grobbly result, that means to roll two twenty-sided dice and pick the highest one", that's not an optional interpretation of the official Flummits rule; that's the official interpretation for the Flummits rule. That's meant to clarify the rule that appears in the rulebook; it's not meant to offer an optional way to play.
From the URL I linked earlier:
From the document in the page:
I included the second sentence to point out that it didn't use to be there. Jeremy Crawford's Tweets used to be considered official rulings. They no longer are. But the answers in this document are considered official rulings.
I'm sorry but, I don't think you understand what "explicit" means. The wording vaguely hints that spellcasting range attack could be included in this feats abilities if you want to read it that way. If it were explicitly stated to include spellcasting range attacks it would be worded like this:
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose Disadvantage on your ranged weapon or ranged spellcasting attack rolls.
That leaves no room for misinterpretation and that, my friend, is what explicitly stated means.
The rules are very clear about what a ranged attack roll is. The Crossbow Expert feat says "does not impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls."
Ranged Attacks
When you make a ranged attack, you fire a bow or a crossbow, hurl a handaxe, or otherwise send projectiles to strike a foe at a distance. A monster might shoot spines from its tail. Many spells also involve making a ranged attack.
Crossbow Expert
Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn’t impose disadvantage on your ranged attack rolls.
It's pretty explicit. Saying "Being within 5 feet of a hostile creature doesn't impose Disadvantage on your ranged weapon or ranged spellcasting attack rolls." would not only be redundant, it wouldn't follow the wording used throughout the rest of the books.
@Tonio, I already mentioned that if Sage Advice answers were better than 50/50 for GOOD rules clarifications I would take them more seriously. In some cases, the answers are great. In the cases that they aren't great, I'll stick to the base rules provided and do my best with it.
If everyone truly believed Sage Advice was the gospel on rules clarification, all the base books could or would be updated to reflect that.
If you want to take Sage Advice to heart that's cool. If you think one man's answers, game creator or not, are infallible compared to the interpretation of literally millions of fans, well...I disagree.
I agree ^
There's so much in Sage Advice that directly contradicts with the rules it's almost funny.
There's some interesting stuff in there, certainly, but I'll follow the core rules. If there's something in them that seems unclear to me, I'm capable of coming to my own conclusions based on the ample information throughout the 3 books.
Edit: Though yes, the Compendium is much better than the tweets. Everything that's in the Sage Advice compendium is pretty darn basic, though. Things that are easy to interpret by having an intimate knowledge of the core rules; nothing in there really contradicts with anything in the books. A lot of the tweets do.
You are free to do whatever you want, of course. Nobody has ever claimed otherwise. You can stick with the PHB/DMG/MM, or you can jump off the PHB and into a custom system full of homebrew and house rules, or whatever. How that relates to the Sage Advice Compendium being official or not is unclear, though.
And please don't put words in my mouth, or assume anything about how I choose to run my games simply because you disagree with me. I'm arguing that the Sage Advice Compendium is official, which it is, and your answer is that you'd rather come up with your own clarifications, and then insinuate I'm a sycophant for blindly following a single person against logic and the masses... I have never claimed Jeremy Crawford's answers are infallible, but I'll gladly challenge your claim that his answers aren't agreeable to "literally millions of fans".
I hear that a lot... how Jeremy Crawford's tweets are sooo contradictory, they mostly contradict themselves, or the rule books... but besides the Shield Master bonus shove timing issue, nobody really ever presents any examples of all these contradictions.
On a separate, but related note: why is it of paramount importance to follow the rules the designers wrote down, how they wrote them down, but it's almost heresy to listen to their explanations of what they meant when they wrote them? We're talking about the same people. I mean, Jeremy Crawford will say "that rule means exactly what it says, When we wrote 'ranged attack', we meant 'ranged attack', and not 'ranged weapon attack'", and everybody's "oh god, there he goes again, spewing his contradictory nonsense", but Matt Mercer makes drinking potions a bonus action in his game, a house rule, and half the people not only play that way, not only advocate for it, but assume that the rules not mentioning that is an oversight.
Good points, I wasn't launching a personal attack against you. I was pointing out how many people will follow the least logical theoretical conclusion if it benefits them(their character). If you wouldn't be eagerly excited to see an enemy creature employ the same tactic against you, maybe it's not a good RAI fit despite what RAW or SA allow.
How many times have you heard game designers say "working as intended" vs "we made a mistake"?
The reason why people would rather cling to simpler, old rules and argue how they work is easy to answer. It is a simpler base with less open interpretations for everyone to start the discussion with. If someone expands a rule using absolute theoreticals and very niche circumstantial uses, you haven't "clarified" a rule at all. You just made it that much more susceptible to subjective interpretation.
I like rules. I like to follow the rules in the books to the best of my ability. Sure, if I don't agree with it, I'll house rule my own thing (and make sure I stay consistent with it) but I'm big on following rules in all games I play.
When I get to my computer I can search through and find examples for you if you want. Or you can just look at my posts on this forum; half my arguments and rules explanations get "rebutted" by someone saying "no X isn't true because Jeremey tweeted Y."
That's all I was really saying as well. Some fan boy or girl argues a rule not because it makes any sense but, because SA is "official". The original rules are official too, a DM using them over SA isn't house ruling or home brewing. The are using official rules that suit them better.
Not really. The "official rules" are all that appear in official sources. The "official, non-optional rules" are all that appear in the PHB, DMG, and MM, plus their errata and official clarifications. If you ignore an official, non-optional rule, you're in effect houseruling. In the official books (PHB, DMG, MM), there are rules that modify other rules, override them, create exceptions. You can't ignore one of those and claim you're still playing RAW w/o house rules.
And just because you can't find sense in an official rule doesn't mean it makes no sense, it might just mean that fan boy or fan girl you feel so superior to just has a better imagination, is more creative, more adaptable and open minded, and can find ways to make official rules work within their fictional world.
Again, there's nothing wrong with house rules, homebrewing, etc. If you wanna play a game where initiative is determined using your Intelligence bonus instead of your Dexterity bonus, great! If you wanna play a game where all spells require some costly material component which is consumed, awesome! But acknowledge those are house rules, and don't argue as if they're official rules.