Jeremy Crawford's New Sage Advice Column

Thanks. I hadn't seen it.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

This looks like it will be an interesting column and I'm looking forward to it.

I think the RAF perspective includes ways and situations in which the DM might depart from both RAW and RAI to come up with the solution that is most useful for the situation and the group at hand--ad hoc house ruling if you will. Any useful discussion of rules in a DM-centric system would necessarily include adapting or throwing out rules entirely if they are becoming an impediment rather than a helpful tool. Don't like the stealth rules or the two-weapon fighting rules? Here are some potential alternatives for you to consider. That sort of thing.

 

[Morrus]

I had no idea Crawford was such an aeronautics aficionado!

 

[BoldItalic]

I had no idea Crawford was such an aeronautics aficionado!

LOL You might have to explain that, for the benefit of furry nurs.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm more curious about the parts about redesign. I think there are portions of the game that need it. No one gives a drek about errata that is merely typo corrections. I have to agree that like the other articles this month there just wasn't a lot there. And we have to wait another month for anything more.

No redesign!

Errata could include things like "do you get your HD back if you rest at first level?" (The rule says 1/2 HD, round down. RAW says 1/2 of 1 is 1/2, round down to 0; but that seems to break RAF). Other things like Stealth, Durable (did we ever figure out how many hp durable healed you per HD?) and stuff like that is what I want addressed.

My fear is that his comments leave just enough of the door open to people who will go piling in, demanding things like the removal of concentration, a granular magic item pricing system, and a spell-less ranger, all of which rewrite whole portions of the game.

Blech and no-thank-you to the latter.

 

[Zaran]

So you are happy with the current core books just fine. Some of us are not. If they redesign them don't buy the new ones.

 

[Remathilis]

So you are happy with the current core books just fine. Some of us are not. If they redesign them don't buy the new ones.

I have no intention of buying v5.5 if it comes out before 2020. I certainly won't if all they do is capitulate to the whiners about not being able to buy holy swords or stack buffs upon themselves.

 

[JTorres]

My fear is that his comments leave just enough of the door open to people who will go piling in, demanding things like the removal of concentration, a granular magic item pricing system, and a spell-less ranger, all of which rewrite whole portions of the game.

That's what I got out of the article as well. I think, sooner or later, we'll see play test documents for sub-class changes or changes to the concentration rule, etc. Then, what with all that talk about a "living rules set" awhile back, I can see changes to the core design of 5E becoming a real thing. A nice compromise, in my opinion, would be releasing free, downloadable variant rules packets or a collection of such. The designers are already showing a willingness to release stuff like the Eberron packet; it makes sense to publish core rule changes as "variant" or "optional" and just call it a day.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I would be happy to just see a general cleanup and some clarifications. Was it RAI that the identify spell components aren't consumed when the spell is cast or was that a goof?

Stuff like that. Otherwise I am happy with the core books.

 

[TheMadGent]

LOL You might have to explain that, for the benefit of furry nurs.

RAF stands for Royal Air Force, the UKish air force.

Edit: I might have misread your post, and thought you were confused when you weren't.

 

[Remathilis]

That's what I got out of the article as well. I think, sooner or later, we'll see play test documents for sub-class changes or changes to the concentration rule, etc. Then, what with all that talk about a "living rules set" awhile back, I can see changes to the core design of 5E becoming a real thing. A nice compromise, in my opinion, would be releasing free, downloadable variant rules packets or a collection of such. The designers are already showing a willingness to release stuff like the Eberron packet; it makes sense to publish core rule changes as "variant" or "optional" and just call it a day.

I'd rather they fix things via a new subclass (battle master 2.0, under a different name) or add a few rules patches than "here is our updated paladin class!" type fixes. 4e and Pathfinder both have gone down this road (4e nearly completely re-writing battle rager, Pathfinder nerf-sticking Crane Wing Style into oblivion).

If I can play 5e using the errata a clarification tool rather than a rewritten core-book, I'll be perfectly happy.