Quote Originally Posted by Easy_Lee View Post
I think that's the point, though. Sage advice is rulings. Some people consider those rulings to be above normal rulings, others don't.

But we have all seen people say "that doesn't work" in response to a thing, then reference SA as the reason. If SA is just rulings, then that shouldn't happen. People should just say they disagree with the ruling. But they don't. Many treat sage advice as if it was RAW, and accuse anyone who doesn't follow it of using house rules.

Is sage advice above a regular ruling? That's my question. Some people treat it that way, others think sa is garbage.
And some people believe the earth is flat (no really). Doesn't change the truth.

What I was objecting to is the lack of any reasoning in declaring something to be garbage. If he had said "I don't like (and so don't use) SA," that would be fine with me. It doesn't really bug me what others do at their tables. What I object to is the flat declaration that anyone who follows SA is making their game worse and that all SA is garbage.

My position has always been that there are no rules, only rulings--the only thing that matters is what happens at a specific table. Those rulings should (in my opinion) be based in the text and errata, but doing otherwise is up to the table in question. Focusing on RAW (which is a forum-created, non-RAW thing in this edition) is a red herring. It provides no substance except as a club to hit people who disagree. Note that in 5e (unlike 3.5) there is no "primary source" rule nor is there a "text trumps table" rule. DMs (along with their tables) are supposed to use their judgement and make rulings, applying the text, errata, and whatever other sources they decide they want to include to the situation at hand.