It was pointed out in another thread that sooner or later, most more specific rules discussion ends up circling around to the question of "what are the rules?" Is it only the language that is found within the core rulebooks? Does it include the "official rulings" of the Sage Advice Compendium? Does it extend to the views expressed by D&D designers like Jeremy Crawford? Rather than trying to hash that out (and rehash, over and over) in the context of a specific scenario where a desired outcome might cloud the waters, let's just tackle this head on in its own thread.
TLDR: There is one source of "official rules": the written text of the three core rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM). There are two sources of other "rules" that may be in play at any given table: the written text of any other rule option that the DM chooses to make part of the campaign (e.g., class or race features from a supplement, Adventurers League rules if the game is being run as an Adventurers League session); and the house rules implemented by the DM in the campaign. Everything else (be it tweet, publication, dndbeyond interface implementation, forum discussion, or the SAC itself) is only at most persuasive evidence to be used by the DM in interpreting the rules" and cannot create new rules unless the DM chooses (and even then it's the DM creating the rule, not the outside source).
1. What do the rule books say about where rules are found?
The Basic Rules introduction clearly claims to contain "the rules" of D&D; I don't think anyone would disagree that the Basic Rules are rules, but I think we're also all aware that the PHB has continued to be updated and errata'd while the Basic Rules have not since their publication prior to the existence of PHB, DMG, and MM. The Players Handbook contains the same introduction, also clearly rules, and essentially replaces the Basic Rules document as a core rulebook. The Dungeon Master's Guide has an introduction that describes itself as a rulebook with two rulebook companions, which are the PHB and the MM. The Monster Manual also says it has rules, and describes itself as part of the "foundation" of three core rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM). These three books are listed on dnbeyond as "core rulebooks."
Other official publications, like Xanathar's Guide to Everything, describe themselves differently. "The options here build on the official rules contained within the Player’s Handbook, the Monster Manual, and the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Think of this source as the companion to those volumes. It builds on their foundation, exploring pathways first laid in those publications. Nothing herein is required for a D&D campaign — this is not a fourth core rulebook — but we hope it will provide you new ways to enjoy the game." These books do not purport to be "rules," only "rule options," and reinforce that "the rules" are found only in the three core rulebooks. Of course, if a DM chooses to implement one of these options, than that option can be considered to have become a "rule" for that table.
2. But what about other "official" sources?
The Sage Advice Compendium, another official Wizards publication, also does not itself claim to be a rulebook. "The Sage Advice Compendium collects questions and answers about the rules of Dungeons & Dragons (fifth edition)." The first "Why even have a column like Sage Advice when a DM can just make a ruling?" question in the "The Role of the Rules" section deserves close reading by those who are out here saying "it's official, it's a ruling, so it's an official rule!" In it, SAC is very clear that the rulings provided in SAC are not intended to replace the rules in the core rulebooks, nor the DMs power to arbitrate those rules or create new ones, but instead only provide "perspective" or "tools" to help the DM make a decision. It then explores RAW, RAI, and RAF, making clear that SAC "rulings" may be based on any combination of the three, and are not intended to provide rules that override the written text of the core rulebooks. Everything that follows in SAC needs to be read in light of that introduction: the rulings are not rules, can't create rules, can't change rules, they can only help the DM decide how to interpret the rules as they are written in the core rulebooks, or whether to implement a new house rule.
Jeremy Crawford's tweets once upon a time overlapped with the SAC as carrying weight as "official" advice, but as of earlier this year that is no longer the case. Still, he is also of opinion that "The official rules of D&D are in the 3 core books... Any rules that appear elsewhere are optional." His tweets are no longer "official," but still it is clear that he acknowledges that the rules have at all times been constrained to the 3 core books.
There could be any number of other "official" sources one might find persuasive. Whether we're talking about an official interview with D&D writers where they discuss the intent of rules, or an official Unearthed Arcana document that creates some rule interaction or has an introduction talking about the intent or application of rules, or some other Wizards publication (like the Starter Set, or a Campaign, or a Sourcebook).
3. Okay, but you're splitting hairs. If there is an "official ruling," why not just accept that as the best way to read the rules?
Because as time and experience have shown us, for a long time the only thing that seemed necessary to make a Crawford tweet or an SAC ruling "official" was that it be a sincerely held belief of Jeremy Crawford at the time he espoused it (even if it directly contradicted a past ruling of his). I'm not saying his opinions aren't worth giving weight, he has a lot of experience with the game and was a very important part of the team that created the rule system we're playing. But 1) Crawford in his better moments has pulled back and made clear that his opinions are not rules, and 2) I think it is probably overstating things to think that he singlehandedly wrote every rule or had the final say on every rule.
A DM is the only person who has the power to arbitrate what the core rulebooks say RAW, and the only person who has the power to implement new house rules. If they want to read SAC and follow those recommendations, that source is readily available at the click of a button and nothing is stopping them. If they instead want to go to a forum and hear the opinions of how other DMs have arbitrated those RAW rules, or what other houserules those DMs have implemented to resolve situations in a way they find desirable (RAF) or closer to the "true" intentions of the writers (RAI), then that's what the dndbeyond Rules & Game Mechanics Forum is for. Shutting down discussion here because SAC has already ruled on things is reductive and counterproductive. If a reader or forum user wanted to have SAC parroted back at them, they could much more effectively go straight to the source rather than having a stranger (mis)quote it back to them selectively.
4. Fine SAC is opinions, but so are yours, why should we care what [UserX] has to say more than SAC about what the rules say RAW? Why not just cite to SAC and lock the thread?
You, me, and everyone else on this forum certainly have no more authority to arbitrate the rules than SAC does (read: no authority at all). However, when we set out to have rigorous, thorough, textually-supported discussions about rules we are often doing something signifigantly more helpful for a DM who's looking to make their own decision than what Crawford does in his tweets, or SAC does in its rulings, when they simply provide a decision without adequately supporting the considerations that went into that ruling.
For a certain sort of reader or DM, the SAC is perfect. For a different sort of reader or DM, rigorous forum discussion is perfect. Forum discussion should not be stifled or dismissed as frivolous simply because it goes beyond what the first sort of reader is looking for.
really! I do notice that there are still some sections where you can find different wording between the two (can't think of where I noticed it last time), but yeah, in general they're probably close enough. But there is a recent tweet from Jeremy Crawford where he mentions both Basic Rules and Starter Kit being something like "abbreviated summaries" of the core rulebooks, and not themselves being counted as core rulebooks.
really! I do notice that there are still some sections where you can find different wording between the two (can't think of where I noticed it last time), but yeah, in general they're probably close enough. But there is a recent tweet from Jeremy Crawford where he mentions both Basic Rules and Starter Kit being something like "abbreviated summaries" of the core rulebooks, and not themselves being counted as core rulebooks.
Tweets don't have any official weight to them. They are just suggestions. The SAC at least holds as much weight as an official supplement (though not considered a core rule book).
As long as a ruling is not directly countered by a rule (such as whether you need a free hand to perform somatic components or whether a magic staff can be used as a focus), then there can be multiple viable RAW rulings (because the RAW is often not as specific as it should be leaving things up to interpretation).
Yeah, I agree. I mean I think that Crawford probably has a good idea of where books fit in the scheme of rulebooks vs. supplements, since he's the one writing them, but ultimately the core books themselves also say that the Basic Rules aren't a core rulebook, so yeah everyone and everything is in agreement.
Sometimes RAW text is clear (a longsword has the versatile trait), and sometimes the RAW text is clear but RAI is cloudy (why are darts ranged weapons with the thrown trait, when thrown is only a relevant trait for melee weapons?), and sometimes the RAW text is unclear (plenty of examples). Rulings are "viable" in any of these scenarios, people ask questions for lots of reasons, and SAC certainly holds weight as rulings on those questions that are "officially" endorsed by WOTC. But the fact that WOTC has an answer is not a sufficient reason to shut down conversation when people want to scrutinize those rulings, or offer alternative rulings that they think are equally or more so supported by RAW text found in the core books instead of fuzzy concepts like RAI.
I liked what you said about having the thought process available (at least as much as has been written in the post) to help inform a ruling. A DM might be inclined to rule one way generally speaking. Because of the specific way that one game that they are running is structured, they might rule differently in that specific game and base that ruling off of ideas that they get from one of these posts. The number of "new to D&D and new DM" posts that pop on here are numerous, and being able to read through the thought processes that are presented can give some pretty good insight, even if the person reading it doesn't agree with any particular ruling. Of course, reading through a bunch of bickering can feel pretty useless and frustrate people who are new and just looking for some guidance.
The bickering tends to come from forum tryhards attempting to demonstrate their superiority of knowledge - "Look, I know more rules than this guy does!" - or from people who're attempting to argue a sketch case to try and derive an in-game benefit or boon they know they're not really entitled to.
Otherwise discussion tends to get heated because people are passionate about their hobbies and most of the folks in this forum tend to be at least part-time DMs, but I don't see a ton of out-and-out fighting. I know I tend to view rules discussions in this forum in one of two ways. One: the poster is a player looking for an explanation of a confusing or unclear rule/mechanic, in which case strict adherence to that rule and a clear description of what it's doing, why it's doing it, and what that rule is intending to accomplish by doing so clears the confusion right up.
Or two: The "WHY does this work this way?" posts, which often end up as fierce debates between people who argue letter vs. spirit, permissive or restrictive DMs, or any number of variations on "it should work differently!" vs "should is a word we don't acknowledge here".
One of the things we could all do with a bit more remembering, methinks (unless you're playing AL, I suppose) is that the most important rule in D&D is Rule Zero.
I have been reluctant to post in this thread because everything about the first post is a well formulated argument that comes to the wrong conclusion yet again.
1. I will concede your definition of core rules and core rule books. The rest is a well cherry-picked argument that selectively neglects that Xanathar's Guide calls itself a "rules expansion." It may be optional, but if you choose to use it, its rules carry the same weight as the rules in the "core" books. Xanathar's isn't a 4th "core rulebook", but that doesn't mean it doesn't contain official material or even rules. Not being a "4th core rulebook" just means that it is not required for play, just like official rulings -- because a DM has final say on rules adjudication anyway.
2. Again, cherry-picking the introduction to the Sage Advice Compendium. It seems as though the OP is the one who should give that section a close reading, because a close reading of it leads to many conclusions opposite stated in point two. It specifically uses the term "official ruling" and calls out that it is the only place for them -- not tweets or other expressed opinions of creators such as Sage Advice that hasn't made it into the compendium. The OP has also selectively altered the "just as the rules do" part out of a sentence that says "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" to argue that SAC is somehow diminished in comparison to the rules, when a careful reading places them on the same level -- below DM adjudication.
The OP then goes on to reference a tweet in support of his stance that tweets and other sources carry no weight. Not much to say about that.
The only official sources are the ones from the publishers that state that they are. My argument isn't that SAC is official even though there is no proof of that, my argument is that SAC is official because it says it is and is from the official source. Other sources -- tweets, WotC articles, D&DBeyond articles, Facebook posts, GiantITPG posts, TikTok videos, interviews, hearsay from devs, or whatever are not official.
3. You're just saying that you want to say your piece. Fine. Express your rules opinions as opinions (once) and be done with it. If you're arguing that nothing beyond the core rulebooks are anything more than opinion, then your rule interpretation is just that. No point in arguing over opinion. I guess I'm guilty of that part - but I think that rulings carry the weight of rules, and there are two sources of rulings in 5e - your DM (primarily) and WotC's official rulings (as a secondary resource).
4. Requires buy-in on any of the previous parts, which is a tall ask. So, again there isn't much to say.
And, with all that being said, I still respect (and understand a lot better) your standing on why you don't just accept those SAC rulings. I don't agree, as outlined above. I don't think I'll convince anyone and don't feel the need to argue. But, I did want to at least point out why I continue to disagree.
I just don’t understand the hop-skip you are making between “they are official rulings” to “they are official rules.” I understand the words are similar. I understand that rulings are made about rules. In a more formal system, like a court system where prior court rulings can be cited as binding precedent... fine, great, totally on board with rulings = rules. But we do NOT have a precedent-based rule system where rulings are operating as rules. They are advice, offered by very persuasive authorities. And that is not my interpretation, or one that requires hostility to the authors, it is the way that the SAC itself asks to be used.
Of COURSE a DM is the final arbiter of their “table rules”. But when we debate the meaning of “official rules” or “core rules”, we are not building straw men DMs who will implement optional/suggested rules from this or that rules supplement, or this or that piece of advice. We are debating rules in a perfect theoretical vacuum, devoid of messy subjective modification. If we’re talking “official rules”, that’s the text of the PHB, the DMG, and the MM. if we’re talking a Xanathars option, we’re talking PHB, DMG, MM, and (that portion of) XGtE. These other “rulings” are not “official rules” by their very nature, since not all tables have them as a common foundation, depending on whether a DM has elected to follow their advice.
If there is such a thing as “official rules”, it is the text of those three books, because they call themselves that, other sources call them that, and no other sources claim to be that. In practice rules stop being perfect and official once they become played, so it’s understandable if folks are looking for “this is how I play, what do you think?” advice. But any posts that try to express “the rules officially ARE this,” has no leg to stand on but the written text of the official rules.
I have been reluctant to post in this thread because everything about the first post is a well formulated argument that comes to the wrong conclusion yet again.
1. I will concede your definition of core rules and core rule books. The rest is a well cherry-picked argument that selectively neglects that Xanathar's Guide calls itself a "rules expansion." It may be optional, but if you choose to use it, its rules carry the same weight as the rules in the "core" books. Xanathar's isn't a 4th "core rulebook", but that doesn't mean it doesn't contain official material or even rules. Not being a "4th core rulebook" just means that it is not required for play, just like official rulings -- because a DM has final say on rules adjudication anyway.
2. Again, cherry-picking the introduction to the Sage Advice Compendium. It seems as though the OP is the one who should give that section a close reading, because a close reading of it leads to many conclusions opposite stated in point two. It specifically uses the term "official ruling" and calls out that it is the only place for them -- not tweets or other expressed opinions of creators such as Sage Advice that hasn't made it into the compendium. The OP has also selectively altered the "just as the rules do" part out of a sentence that says "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" to argue that SAC is somehow diminished in comparison to the rules, when a careful reading places them on the same level -- below DM adjudication.
The OP then goes on to reference a tweet in support of his stance that tweets and other sources carry no weight. Not much to say about that.
The only official sources are the ones from the publishers that state that they are. My argument isn't that SAC is official even though there is no proof of that, my argument is that SAC is official because it says it is and is from the official source. Other sources -- tweets, WotC articles, D&DBeyond articles, Facebook posts, GiantITPG posts, TikTok videos, interviews, hearsay from devs, or whatever are not official.
3. You're just saying that you want to say your piece. Fine. Express your rules opinions as opinions (once) and be done with it. If you're arguing that nothing beyond the core rulebooks are anything more than opinion, then your rule interpretation is just that. No point in arguing over opinion. I guess I'm guilty of that part - but I think that rulings carry the weight of rules, and there are two sources of rulings in 5e - your DM (primarily) and WotC's official rulings (as a secondary resource).
4. Requires buy-in on any of the previous parts, which is a tall ask. So, again there isn't much to say.
I want to focus on 3.
”I think that rulings carry the weight of rules...”
okay. Let’s go with this.
The rule is: murder is illegal. Killing people is illegal.
the courts ruling, is innocent, because the defendant was on prescription mood enhancer drugs, and couldn’t be held accountable for the in the moment murder he commits.
extreme scenario. I know. Simply put.
a ruling is not the same as a rule. Not do they carry the weight of the rules. As rulings can simply flat out ignore rules entirely
To put a better point on it, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t ever discuss the SAC rulings, or that they may not be the correct answer an OP is looking for. I’m just saying that, if SAC tells us “here is some advice, which there are good reasons to follow”, we should not by quoting SAC transform it into “here are some rules, which you are wrong if you do not follow.” When I see “SAC already answered that” posts, they almost always are the latter.
I just don’t understand the hop-skip you are making between “they are official rulings” to “they are official rules.” I understand the words are similar. I understand that rulings are made about rules. In a more formal system, like a court system where prior court rulings can be cited as binding precedent... fine, great, totally on board with rulings = rules. But we do NOT have a precedent-based rule system where rulings are operating as rules. They are advice, offered by very persuasive authorities. And that is not my interpretation, or one that requires hostility to the authors, it is the way that the SAC itself asks to be used.
Because any rules system that allows for official rulings treats those rulings as rules. Was this play pass interference? You and I may argue, but once the tubby man in the zebra outfit makes his declaration, play proceeds as if the rule has been violated or not - his official ruling carries the weight of the rules. I cannot think of a rule system where once a ruling (even a subjective one) has been made on a rule question and that ruling remains intact, you ignore that ruling on subjects pertaining to that rule question.
you don’t make up a penalty based on what you see in replay.
you replay a penalty based on the rule for the penalty already in place.
to go with your NFL example.
ie: they don’t create a new penalty for swinging helmets at people. where as swinging helmets at people is already against misconduct rules.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. There is some rules interaction: to continue the NFL analogy, incidental contact vs pass interference on a particular play. Some official makes a ruling on that interaction. Once that ruling is made -- such as "that contact constitutes pass interference" -- then the play proceeds as if the defensemen violated the rules on pass interference. That is what I mean when I say that a ruling carries the weight of a rule. The ruling "this interaction of players constitutes pass interference" means that "we treat this play as if a violation of that rule occurred." The ruling on whether a play was pass interference carries the weight of the associated rule of pass interference.
To go back to your murder example. If a court rules that a defendant is mentally unfit to stand trial, then that means we treat the defendant with the rules associated with defendants who are unfit to stand trial.
Edit: This is all exactly what happens when a DM makes a ruling: you proceed as if that ruling were a rule. "Can we use feats?" "No." Ok, dm ruled no feats, that is as good as a rule for our game.
The difference here is that the refs are collectively the DM and the way that they rule on something in their game doesn't carry weight in the following game or even games the following year. It can carry some influence on the way that those rules are perceived later. The way that those rules were enforced may force a change in the rules or be the basis of new rules (errata & rules expansion, respectively in D&D parlance). The difference is D&D by design wants to remain playable with only the core rule books to maintain accessibility, whereas the new rules that are initiated in football are in force wherever games are played under that ruling body.
Interestingly enough, even in the legal system, rulings are not rules unless they are written into law. Otherwise, they are simply precedent that a judge may use to help facilitate a decision in the matter. Thus, even the rulings in our legal system aren't rules, they are simply explanations for how a particular judge (DM if you will) ruled on a scenario based on the laws that were in effect.
My TLDR of the OP would be, "The PHB, MM, and DMG are the core rules of the game. Everything else is, at best, optional rules. Many things that get passed off as rules are simply opinions of people of varying degrees of expertise and authority on the matter and should be treated as such instead of as the final arbiter in a matter".
Edit: added the omitted words "is D&D" at the beginning of the last sentence of the third paragraph to bring RAW up to RAI.
you don’t make up a penalty based on what you see in replay.
you replay a penalty based on the rule for the penalty already in place.
to go with your NFL example.
ie: they don’t create a new penalty for swinging helmets at people. where as swinging helmets at people is already against misconduct rules.
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. There is some rules interaction: to continue the NFL analogy, incidental contact vs pass interference on a particular play. Some official makes a ruling on that interaction. Once that ruling is made -- such as "that contact constitutes pass interference" -- then the play proceeds as if the defensemen violated the rules on pass interference. That is what I mean when I say that a ruling carries the weight of a rule. The ruling "this interaction of players constitutes pass interference" means that "we treat this play as if a violation of that rule occurred." The ruling on whether a play was pass interference carries the weight of the associated rule of pass interference.
To go back to your murder example. If a court rules that a defendant is mentally unfit to stand trial, then that means we treat the defendant with the rules associated with defendants who are unfit to stand trial.
Edit: This is all exactly what happens when a DM makes a ruling: you proceed as if that ruling were a rule. "Can we use feats?" "No." Ok, dm ruled no feats, that is as good as a rule for our game.
To your edits point.
no. It’s not. If that was the case. To co to use your NFL analogy. All of your incidental contacts are completely the same. Now there’s no more rulings. It’s just a rule.
to your comment to the murder case. Also no.
no 2 individuals are the same and no 2 court cases are the same. Their reactions on psychopharmacological level to the drugs aren’t the same.
so you can’t use that exact same ruling for each person.
easentially: the point I am trying to help you see. Is that Rulings differ by rules, in that a ruling is unique to a very specific incident that is not easily duplicated.
a rule, is for situations that happen all the time.
that is the fundamental difference between rulings and rules.
now, as it applies to D&D, it does not use that same real world meaning, definition, and usage. So, real world analogies do not work for the D&D term of “rulings”
I am not going to quote Jhfffan above: but he has the understanding of the difference between rulings and rules how it equates in the nfl, in court, I. The real world, and in D&D.
as well as, the fundamental problem with treating all rulings as rules, when that’s not the case.
It was pointed out in another thread that sooner or later, most more specific rules discussion ends up circling around to the question of "what are the rules?" Is it only the language that is found within the core rulebooks? Does it include the "official rulings" of the Sage Advice Compendium? Does it extend to the views expressed by D&D designers like Jeremy Crawford? Rather than trying to hash that out (and rehash, over and over) in the context of a specific scenario where a desired outcome might cloud the waters, let's just tackle this head on in its own thread.
TLDR: There is one source of "official rules": the written text of the three core rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM). There are two sources of other "rules" that may be in play at any given table: the written text of any other rule option that the DM chooses to make part of the campaign (e.g., class or race features from a supplement, Adventurers League rules if the game is being run as an Adventurers League session); and the house rules implemented by the DM in the campaign. Everything else (be it tweet, publication, dndbeyond interface implementation, forum discussion, or the SAC itself) is only at most persuasive evidence to be used by the DM in interpreting the rules" and cannot create new rules unless the DM chooses (and even then it's the DM creating the rule, not the outside source).
1. What do the rule books say about where rules are found?
The Basic Rules introduction clearly claims to contain "the rules" of D&D; I don't think anyone would disagree that the Basic Rules are rules, but I think we're also all aware that the PHB has continued to be updated and errata'd while the Basic Rules have not since their publication prior to the existence of PHB, DMG, and MM. The Players Handbook contains the same introduction, also clearly rules, and essentially replaces the Basic Rules document as a core rulebook. The Dungeon Master's Guide has an introduction that describes itself as a rulebook with two rulebook companions, which are the PHB and the MM. The Monster Manual also says it has rules, and describes itself as part of the "foundation" of three core rulebooks (PHB, DMG, MM). These three books are listed on dnbeyond as "core rulebooks."
Other official publications, like Xanathar's Guide to Everything, describe themselves differently. "The options here build on the official rules contained within the Player’s Handbook, the Monster Manual, and the Dungeon Master’s Guide. Think of this source as the companion to those volumes. It builds on their foundation, exploring pathways first laid in those publications. Nothing herein is required for a D&D campaign — this is not a fourth core rulebook — but we hope it will provide you new ways to enjoy the game." These books do not purport to be "rules," only "rule options," and reinforce that "the rules" are found only in the three core rulebooks. Of course, if a DM chooses to implement one of these options, than that option can be considered to have become a "rule" for that table.
2. But what about other "official" sources?
The Sage Advice Compendium, another official Wizards publication, also does not itself claim to be a rulebook. "The Sage Advice Compendium collects questions and answers about the rules of Dungeons & Dragons (fifth edition)." The first "Why even have a column like Sage Advice when a DM can just make a ruling?" question in the "The Role of the Rules" section deserves close reading by those who are out here saying "it's official, it's a ruling, so it's an official rule!" In it, SAC is very clear that the rulings provided in SAC are not intended to replace the rules in the core rulebooks, nor the DMs power to arbitrate those rules or create new ones, but instead only provide "perspective" or "tools" to help the DM make a decision. It then explores RAW, RAI, and RAF, making clear that SAC "rulings" may be based on any combination of the three, and are not intended to provide rules that override the written text of the core rulebooks. Everything that follows in SAC needs to be read in light of that introduction: the rulings are not rules, can't create rules, can't change rules, they can only help the DM decide how to interpret the rules as they are written in the core rulebooks, or whether to implement a new house rule.
Jeremy Crawford's tweets once upon a time overlapped with the SAC as carrying weight as "official" advice, but as of earlier this year that is no longer the case. Still, he is also of opinion that "The official rules of D&D are in the 3 core books... Any rules that appear elsewhere are optional." His tweets are no longer "official," but still it is clear that he acknowledges that the rules have at all times been constrained to the 3 core books.
There could be any number of other "official" sources one might find persuasive. Whether we're talking about an official interview with D&D writers where they discuss the intent of rules, or an official Unearthed Arcana document that creates some rule interaction or has an introduction talking about the intent or application of rules, or some other Wizards publication (like the Starter Set, or a Campaign, or a Sourcebook).
3. Okay, but you're splitting hairs. If there is an "official ruling," why not just accept that as the best way to read the rules?
Because as time and experience have shown us, for a long time the only thing that seemed necessary to make a Crawford tweet or an SAC ruling "official" was that it be a sincerely held belief of Jeremy Crawford at the time he espoused it (even if it directly contradicted a past ruling of his). I'm not saying his opinions aren't worth giving weight, he has a lot of experience with the game and was a very important part of the team that created the rule system we're playing. But 1) Crawford in his better moments has pulled back and made clear that his opinions are not rules, and 2) I think it is probably overstating things to think that he singlehandedly wrote every rule or had the final say on every rule.
A DM is the only person who has the power to arbitrate what the core rulebooks say RAW, and the only person who has the power to implement new house rules. If they want to read SAC and follow those recommendations, that source is readily available at the click of a button and nothing is stopping them. If they instead want to go to a forum and hear the opinions of how other DMs have arbitrated those RAW rules, or what other houserules those DMs have implemented to resolve situations in a way they find desirable (RAF) or closer to the "true" intentions of the writers (RAI), then that's what the dndbeyond Rules & Game Mechanics Forum is for. Shutting down discussion here because SAC has already ruled on things is reductive and counterproductive. If a reader or forum user wanted to have SAC parroted back at them, they could much more effectively go straight to the source rather than having a stranger (mis)quote it back to them selectively.
4. Fine SAC is opinions, but so are yours, why should we care what [UserX] has to say more than SAC about what the rules say RAW? Why not just cite to SAC and lock the thread?
You, me, and everyone else on this forum certainly have no more authority to arbitrate the rules than SAC does (read: no authority at all). However, when we set out to have rigorous, thorough, textually-supported discussions about rules we are often doing something signifigantly more helpful for a DM who's looking to make their own decision than what Crawford does in his tweets, or SAC does in its rulings, when they simply provide a decision without adequately supporting the considerations that went into that ruling.
For a certain sort of reader or DM, the SAC is perfect. For a different sort of reader or DM, rigorous forum discussion is perfect. Forum discussion should not be stifled or dismissed as frivolous simply because it goes beyond what the first sort of reader is looking for.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
The rules are whatever the DM decides they are. Even in AL (I checked) the DM has the final say on rulings and whether they follow SAC or not.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersIt's worth noting that the Basic Rules were updated late 2018 to bring them inline with changes to other books.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
really! I do notice that there are still some sections where you can find different wording between the two (can't think of where I noticed it last time), but yeah, in general they're probably close enough. But there is a recent tweet from Jeremy Crawford where he mentions both Basic Rules and Starter Kit being something like "abbreviated summaries" of the core rulebooks, and not themselves being counted as core rulebooks.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Tweets don't have any official weight to them. They are just suggestions. The SAC at least holds as much weight as an official supplement (though not considered a core rule book).
As long as a ruling is not directly countered by a rule (such as whether you need a free hand to perform somatic components or whether a magic staff can be used as a focus), then there can be multiple viable RAW rulings (because the RAW is often not as specific as it should be leaving things up to interpretation).
Yeah, I agree. I mean I think that Crawford probably has a good idea of where books fit in the scheme of rulebooks vs. supplements, since he's the one writing them, but ultimately the core books themselves also say that the Basic Rules aren't a core rulebook, so yeah everyone and everything is in agreement.
Sometimes RAW text is clear (a longsword has the versatile trait), and sometimes the RAW text is clear but RAI is cloudy (why are darts ranged weapons with the thrown trait, when thrown is only a relevant trait for melee weapons?), and sometimes the RAW text is unclear (plenty of examples). Rulings are "viable" in any of these scenarios, people ask questions for lots of reasons, and SAC certainly holds weight as rulings on those questions that are "officially" endorsed by WOTC. But the fact that WOTC has an answer is not a sufficient reason to shut down conversation when people want to scrutinize those rulings, or offer alternative rulings that they think are equally or more so supported by RAW text found in the core books instead of fuzzy concepts like RAI.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I liked what you said about having the thought process available (at least as much as has been written in the post) to help inform a ruling. A DM might be inclined to rule one way generally speaking. Because of the specific way that one game that they are running is structured, they might rule differently in that specific game and base that ruling off of ideas that they get from one of these posts. The number of "new to D&D and new DM" posts that pop on here are numerous, and being able to read through the thought processes that are presented can give some pretty good insight, even if the person reading it doesn't agree with any particular ruling. Of course, reading through a bunch of bickering can feel pretty useless and frustrate people who are new and just looking for some guidance.
The bickering tends to come from forum tryhards attempting to demonstrate their superiority of knowledge - "Look, I know more rules than this guy does!" - or from people who're attempting to argue a sketch case to try and derive an in-game benefit or boon they know they're not really entitled to.
Otherwise discussion tends to get heated because people are passionate about their hobbies and most of the folks in this forum tend to be at least part-time DMs, but I don't see a ton of out-and-out fighting. I know I tend to view rules discussions in this forum in one of two ways. One: the poster is a player looking for an explanation of a confusing or unclear rule/mechanic, in which case strict adherence to that rule and a clear description of what it's doing, why it's doing it, and what that rule is intending to accomplish by doing so clears the confusion right up.
Or two: The "WHY does this work this way?" posts, which often end up as fierce debates between people who argue letter vs. spirit, permissive or restrictive DMs, or any number of variations on "it should work differently!" vs "should is a word we don't acknowledge here".
One of the things we could all do with a bit more remembering, methinks (unless you're playing AL, I suppose) is that the most important rule in D&D is Rule Zero.
Please do not contact or message me.
I have been reluctant to post in this thread because everything about the first post is a well formulated argument that comes to the wrong conclusion yet again.
1. I will concede your definition of core rules and core rule books. The rest is a well cherry-picked argument that selectively neglects that Xanathar's Guide calls itself a "rules expansion." It may be optional, but if you choose to use it, its rules carry the same weight as the rules in the "core" books. Xanathar's isn't a 4th "core rulebook", but that doesn't mean it doesn't contain official material or even rules. Not being a "4th core rulebook" just means that it is not required for play, just like official rulings -- because a DM has final say on rules adjudication anyway.
2. Again, cherry-picking the introduction to the Sage Advice Compendium. It seems as though the OP is the one who should give that section a close reading, because a close reading of it leads to many conclusions opposite stated in point two. It specifically uses the term "official ruling" and calls out that it is the only place for them -- not tweets or other expressed opinions of creators such as Sage Advice that hasn't made it into the compendium. The OP has also selectively altered the "just as the rules do" part out of a sentence that says "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" to argue that SAC is somehow diminished in comparison to the rules, when a careful reading places them on the same level -- below DM adjudication.
The OP then goes on to reference a tweet in support of his stance that tweets and other sources carry no weight. Not much to say about that.
The only official sources are the ones from the publishers that state that they are. My argument isn't that SAC is official even though there is no proof of that, my argument is that SAC is official because it says it is and is from the official source. Other sources -- tweets, WotC articles, D&DBeyond articles, Facebook posts, GiantITPG posts, TikTok videos, interviews, hearsay from devs, or whatever are not official.
3. You're just saying that you want to say your piece. Fine. Express your rules opinions as opinions (once) and be done with it. If you're arguing that nothing beyond the core rulebooks are anything more than opinion, then your rule interpretation is just that. No point in arguing over opinion. I guess I'm guilty of that part - but I think that rulings carry the weight of rules, and there are two sources of rulings in 5e - your DM (primarily) and WotC's official rulings (as a secondary resource).
4. Requires buy-in on any of the previous parts, which is a tall ask. So, again there isn't much to say.
And, with all that being said, I still respect (and understand a lot better) your standing on why you don't just accept those SAC rulings. I don't agree, as outlined above. I don't think I'll convince anyone and don't feel the need to argue. But, I did want to at least point out why I continue to disagree.
I just don’t understand the hop-skip you are making between “they are official rulings” to “they are official rules.” I understand the words are similar. I understand that rulings are made about rules. In a more formal system, like a court system where prior court rulings can be cited as binding precedent... fine, great, totally on board with rulings = rules. But we do NOT have a precedent-based rule system where rulings are operating as rules. They are advice, offered by very persuasive authorities. And that is not my interpretation, or one that requires hostility to the authors, it is the way that the SAC itself asks to be used.
Of COURSE a DM is the final arbiter of their “table rules”. But when we debate the meaning of “official rules” or “core rules”, we are not building straw men DMs who will implement optional/suggested rules from this or that rules supplement, or this or that piece of advice. We are debating rules in a perfect theoretical vacuum, devoid of messy subjective modification. If we’re talking “official rules”, that’s the text of the PHB, the DMG, and the MM. if we’re talking a Xanathars option, we’re talking PHB, DMG, MM, and (that portion of) XGtE. These other “rulings” are not “official rules” by their very nature, since not all tables have them as a common foundation, depending on whether a DM has elected to follow their advice.
If there is such a thing as “official rules”, it is the text of those three books, because they call themselves that, other sources call them that, and no other sources claim to be that. In practice rules stop being perfect and official once they become played, so it’s understandable if folks are looking for “this is how I play, what do you think?” advice. But any posts that try to express “the rules officially ARE this,” has no leg to stand on but the written text of the official rules.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
I want to focus on 3.
”I think that rulings carry the weight of rules...”
okay. Let’s go with this.
The rule is: murder is illegal. Killing people is illegal.
the courts ruling, is innocent, because the defendant was on prescription mood enhancer drugs, and couldn’t be held accountable for the in the moment murder he commits.
extreme scenario. I know. Simply put.
a ruling is not the same as a rule. Not do they carry the weight of the rules. As rulings can simply flat out ignore rules entirely
Blank
To put a better point on it, I’m not saying that we shouldn’t ever discuss the SAC rulings, or that they may not be the correct answer an OP is looking for. I’m just saying that, if SAC tells us “here is some advice, which there are good reasons to follow”, we should not by quoting SAC transform it into “here are some rules, which you are wrong if you do not follow.” When I see “SAC already answered that” posts, they almost always are the latter.
dndbeyond.com forum tags
I'm going to make this way harder than it needs to be.
Because any rules system that allows for official rulings treats those rulings as rules. Was this play pass interference? You and I may argue, but once the tubby man in the zebra outfit makes his declaration, play proceeds as if the rule has been violated or not - his official ruling carries the weight of the rules. I cannot think of a rule system where once a ruling (even a subjective one) has been made on a rule question and that ruling remains intact, you ignore that ruling on subjects pertaining to that rule question.
Again. Rulings are based off rules.
not the latter.
you don’t make up a penalty based on what you see in replay.
you replay a penalty based on the rule for the penalty already in place.
to go with your NFL example.
ie: they don’t create a new penalty for swinging helmets at people.
where as swinging helmets at people is already against misconduct rules.
Blank
I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. There is some rules interaction: to continue the NFL analogy, incidental contact vs pass interference on a particular play. Some official makes a ruling on that interaction. Once that ruling is made -- such as "that contact constitutes pass interference" -- then the play proceeds as if the defensemen violated the rules on pass interference. That is what I mean when I say that a ruling carries the weight of a rule. The ruling "this interaction of players constitutes pass interference" means that "we treat this play as if a violation of that rule occurred." The ruling on whether a play was pass interference carries the weight of the associated rule of pass interference.
To go back to your murder example. If a court rules that a defendant is mentally unfit to stand trial, then that means we treat the defendant with the rules associated with defendants who are unfit to stand trial.
Edit: This is all exactly what happens when a DM makes a ruling: you proceed as if that ruling were a rule. "Can we use feats?" "No." Ok, dm ruled no feats, that is as good as a rule for our game.
The difference here is that the refs are collectively the DM and the way that they rule on something in their game doesn't carry weight in the following game or even games the following year. It can carry some influence on the way that those rules are perceived later. The way that those rules were enforced may force a change in the rules or be the basis of new rules (errata & rules expansion, respectively in D&D parlance). The difference is D&D by design wants to remain playable with only the core rule books to maintain accessibility, whereas the new rules that are initiated in football are in force wherever games are played under that ruling body.
Interestingly enough, even in the legal system, rulings are not rules unless they are written into law. Otherwise, they are simply precedent that a judge may use to help facilitate a decision in the matter. Thus, even the rulings in our legal system aren't rules, they are simply explanations for how a particular judge (DM if you will) ruled on a scenario based on the laws that were in effect.
My TLDR of the OP would be, "The PHB, MM, and DMG are the core rules of the game. Everything else is, at best, optional rules. Many things that get passed off as rules are simply opinions of people of varying degrees of expertise and authority on the matter and should be treated as such instead of as the final arbiter in a matter".
Edit: added the omitted words "is D&D" at the beginning of the last sentence of the third paragraph to bring RAW up to RAI.
To your edits point.
no. It’s not. If that was the case. To co to use your NFL analogy. All of your incidental contacts are completely the same. Now there’s no more rulings. It’s just a rule.
to your comment to the murder case. Also no.
no 2 individuals are the same and no 2 court cases are the same. Their reactions on psychopharmacological level to the drugs aren’t the same.
so you can’t use that exact same ruling for each person.
easentially: the point I am trying to help you see. Is that Rulings differ by rules, in that a ruling is unique to a very specific incident that is not easily duplicated.
a rule, is for situations that happen all the time.
that is the fundamental difference between rulings and rules.
now, as it applies to D&D, it does not use that same real world meaning, definition, and usage. So, real world analogies do not work for the D&D term of “rulings”
I am not going to quote Jhfffan above: but he has the understanding of the difference between rulings and rules how it equates in the nfl, in court, I. The real world, and in D&D.
as well as, the fundamental problem with treating all rulings as rules, when that’s not the case.
Blank
Rule of cool:
this is a ruling. And is not the same outcome for the exact same thing at any table with any dm. So it’s not a rule.
Blank