Nick Brown

@Nautarch - What sources an AL DM can and should consider is pretty fundamental to my question. The ALDMG_v82 specifically forbids AL DMs from making new rules. But the guidance in the FAQ allows for designer tweets to be considered in rulings (possibly against RAW). Where does the AL DM draw the line? Are they allowed to let the wizard protect himself like he can for his allies? Maybe I need to spin this discussion off as the real fundamental question.

@NautArch- That is a very useful link, but it seems to address RAW and rulings whereas the AL FAQ references tweets from designers and intent. My take on what you are saying is that AL DMs should be bound by RAW and Sage Advice and keep the tweets away from AL tables. Would that be accurate?

@NautArch - Not trying to quibble here, but is there an article or document (by Wizards or AL) somewhere that explains who can speak officially and who cannot (w.r.t. designer intent)? I feel like I recently came across someone saying that JC's tweets have actually been downgraded now (but I didn't see any supporting evidence). Without that, I don't see why either of you should accept each other's foundational opinions on Mearls.

So despite the section in the AL FAQ about how they perceive that tweets from the Wizards of the Coast staff are a great barometer for the ‘rules-as-intended’ you think that this tweet is irrelevant to an AL DM? Without support, that makes me consider this answer incomplete.

You seem to be making the argument that Mike Mearls cannot know the intent of the designers (despite apparently being one). There are myriad places in the PHB where the designers have failed to write logically. While I think the RAW is clear, I don't understand your [lack of] evidence for RAI (assuming Rules as Intended).

Thanks for the talk. This is one of those questions where you're pretty sure what the legal answer is but you want it to play out just in case you might be wrong (at least a little).

I'm already a cannon not made of glass, and there are drawbacks, but without this I could have gone war wizard and been even tankier.

I guess I can either be lawful good and never sculpt around myself or chaotic good/neutral and take what the DM gives me (when they allow something like this against RAW).

Yeah, and the minute you build a not-squishy wizard (like mine is) the oversight (in my opinion) leaves them vulnerable. And squishy wizards who are accidentally surrounded would love to be safe from their spells even more.

Because RAW just seems so silly to me. A wizard can protect 6 of his friends (who are engaged in fighting and running around) from this massive fireball but he can't protect himself?

I'm not sure how much freedom AL DMs really have (part of my confusion), but in this case I prefer the wrong call (vs RAW). Sigh.

Not wanting to cheat, even though my current DM was okay with it, I am curious whether she is allowed to be cool with it. I happened to use other spells last fight (partially to avoid the issue) and was curious what kind of answers I would see (I thought there'd be more than one though).

When I brought this up at the table and said, "Hey guys, I've been accidentally cheating and I think this is how I have to play now." the response was mostly wanting to see the PHB text and then hearing other players (who DM AL occasionally) say that it was stupid and I should keep playing as I have been.

Additionally, I only noticed the word other at level 12 and it seemed so arbitrarily limiting to me that I went straight to the errata and google to see if that was really how it was supposed to work.

In this case the RAW contradicts RAF (as several of us see it) and the 1st line of the feature seems to imply a level of control over these spells that the 2nd line seems to deeply undercut by restricting its use to other creatures.

Which would then be enough of an opening for the AL DM to choose which version they though made the most sense for the table?

But would a contrary tweet by a designer ever introduce ambiguity when the RAW was otherwise quite clear?

^ Even when designers tweet contrary opinions to the exact wording in the PHB? As in, maybe the PHB has the word other just because the person writing it liked how it sounded even though maybe the designers were focused on the ability of the wizard to carve out safe spots wherever they wanted?

So, are you maybe saying that the bit about designer tweets is only usable (for AL DMs) when the RAW is not clear? Therefore, AL DMs must always follow RAW if it is clear (based on the ALDMG_v82 part about not implementing new rules)?

Both in the MM.

FYI, there is a CR 2 Druid that you might be able to compare against. He's a 4th level caster. And a CR 2 Priest who is a 5th level caster.

Thanks @V2Blast. I didn't think that losing the AC bonus was RAW, but NautArch's suggestion seems like house rule/opinion territory as worded so that can still be okay sometimes.

That tweet would be good as part of the answer. Since it is not a weapon except for when attacking, it should not qualify for anything else that requires it to be a weapon (all of the time): bonding, dual wielding, etc. Indeed, the tweet itself is a very concise answer to the spirit of my questions.

They use too many words when a few will work and too few when we need more.

They worded things stupid all over. See casting a spell as a bonus action for my pet peev.

JC already said that Improvised Weapons are not weapons. Plus all weapons should be on the weapons table.

I think those words were to make sure that DMs wouldn't forbid improvised melee weapon attacks with a bow or an arrow just because they are actually something else in the game already (ranged weapon, ammunition).

So the problem is that a bow resembles a weapon. It is a bow. But bows are ranged weapons. So even though it resembles a weapon which can't be used for melee normally, with those words, it too can be used in melee.

Btw, please don't think that I don't value your opinion in general just because I am adamantly disagreeing on this one point. I'm sure to argue with and against you at times.

Nothing in the PHB is infallible, but I read the Section Names as part of the rules. You don't.

Why don't you ask this as a question? Might get some interesting answers. Maybe there is a tweet or a rule I couldn't find.

You could say that except for JC's ruling. His ruling informs the rules in the PHB and is part of them.

We both think we are reading it as RAW

Apparently our common sense diverges and is not so common.

It gives the context which is extremely important

Everything in that section is for improvised weapons

It is literally under the section named Improvised Weapons

reread all 3 paragraphs including the section heading and it is fully justified

so that's what it is

it is literally under the section called Improvised Weapons

yes, but it is no longer treated as a bow weapon. it is an improvised weapon. you don't even get proficiency unless it resembles another weapon. so a club or staff is being nice.

that's RAW

Your interpretation is not RAW because you say it is

that video showed him using the arrow like a dagger

I'm sorry. Stabbing with a nocked arrow and expecting to get some extra force from releasing the bowstring is unrealistic. You either swing the bow (1d4 b) or stab with the arrow (1d4 p).

You're not stabbing with a nocked arrow. Your stabbing with the arrow in your hand.

the DM assigns a damage type appropriate to the object

I don't think the rules state what you say they do.