Official ruling for three questions please.

[Thomas Keller]

1. Do casters have to do the "Learn a Spell" activity for spells they gain upon level up?

2. For spontaneous casters, is the Spell Known a hard limit, or may they know all of the spells they have a good level for? For example, can a third level Draconic bloodline sorcerer know all the arcane cantrips, first level and second level spells, with a limit only on how many they can cast per day (4 first level and 3 second level)?

3. Are there no bonus spells for high ability scores any longer?

Thanks very much for your attention.

[Kyrone]

1- No, you gain them automatically.

2- It's a hard limit but have feats that increase the amount of spells know.

3- There is no bonus spells for ability score, a Int 10 Wizard will have the same amount of spells prepared than a Int 24 one.

[cavernshark]

Thomas Keller wrote:

1. Do casters have to do the "Learn a Spell" activity for spells they gain upon level up?

No. There's no action specified for this, so it's an automatic benefit of leveling up. The learn a spell action only grants you access to a spell, it doesn't add it to your repertoire (specifically stating you still have to add the spell in the usual ways, which further implies this isn't the action to add spells to repertiores). This probably exists as a way to gain uncommon and rare spells added to your list, or to extend your spell list beyond the common core options.

Spell Repertoire wrote:

Each time you get a spell slot (see Table 3–17), you add a spell of the same level to your spell repertoire.

Thomas Keller wrote:

2. For spontaneous casters, is the Spell Known a hard limit, or may they know all of the spells they have a good level for? For example, can a third level Draconic bloodline sorcerer know all the arcane cantrips, first level and second level spells, with a limit only on how many they can cast per day (4 first level and 3 second level)?

Hard limit. Reread Spell Repertoire in the Sorcerer description. It's very specific how many spells are in your repertoire and how you can add to that. Outside of feats which may add to it, that's the base assumption.

Spell Repertoire wrote:

The collection of spells you can cast is called your spell repertoire. At 1st level, you learn two 1st-level spells of your choice and four cantrips of your choice, as well as an additional spell and cantrip from your bloodline (page 194). You choose these from the common spells from the tradition corresponding to your bloodline, or from other spells from that tradition to which you have access.You can cast any spell in your spell repertoire by using a spell slot of an appropriate spell level.

You add to this spell repertoire as you increase in level. Each time you get a spell slot (see Table 3–17), you add a spell of the same level to your spell repertoire. When you gain access to a new level of spells, your first new spell is always your bloodline spell, but you can choose the other spells you gain. At 2nd level, you select another 1st-level spell; at 3rd level, you gain a new bloodline spell and two other 2nd-level spells, and so on. When you add spells, you might choose a higher-level version of a spell you already have so that you can cast a heightened version of that spell.

Thomas Keller wrote:

3. Are there no bonus spells for high ability scores any longer?

None.

[Thomas Keller]

Thank you for taking the time to answer, but I'm looking for something official here.

[cavernshark]

Thomas Keller wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to answer, but I'm looking for something official here.

Somehow I had a feeling that quoting directly from the CRB wasn't going to be sufficient. Good luck with that.

[Vlorax]

Thomas Keller wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to answer, but I'm looking for something official here.

Those are the rules quoted from the rulebook and as such are official, there's nothing to rule on.

[Thomas Keller]

cavernshark wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to answer, but I'm looking for something official here.

Somehow I had a feeling that quoting directly from the CRB wasn't going to be sufficient. Good luck with that.

Thank you.

[Thomas Keller]

Vlorax wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to answer, but I'm looking for something official here.

Those are the rules quoted from the rulebook and as such are official, there's nothing to rule on.

With respect, I believe there is sufficient lack of clarity to ask for an official ruling.

[Gorbacz]

You do realize that if Devs would answer every time somebody asks for an official ruling, they wouldn't have any time for any rules design, let alone sleep or private life, right?

[Thomas Keller]

Gorbacz wrote:

You do realize that if Devs would answer every time somebody asks for an official ruling, they wouldn't have any time for any rules design, let alone sleep or private life, right?

What would you suggest? There is no FAQ button in the second edition forums, and, to my knowledge, Paizo has no equivalent of Sage Advice. How else are we to get official answers to our questions other than asking them?

[PossibleCabbage]

Food for thought-

One thing PF2 appears to be attempting (and best of luck to them) is to decouple people from the "RAW IS ALL" mindset leading to a need for an official word on all the things, and to just make their intent clear so that people can work it out for themselves.

Like "are gauntlets a weapon" and "bardic masterpieces" were famously thorny (and never resolved) rules issues in PF1, which never actually was a problem at any table I saw... since the GM just let things worked the way the ability in question expected they work, in whatever way was not unreasonable.

[Gorbacz]

Thomas Keller wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

You do realize that if Devs would answer every time somebody asks for an official ruling, they wouldn't have any time for any rules design, let alone sleep or private life, right?

What would you suggest? There is no FAQ button in the second edition forums, and, to my knowledge, Paizo has no equivalent of Sage Advice. How else are we to get official answers to our questions other than asking them?

Ask the GM, and if they can't find an Official Ruling (TM), have them come up with their own. That's how we've handled it since 1978 and that's how Gary and Dave did it

[Steve Geddes]

Thomas Keller wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

You do realize that if Devs would answer every time somebody asks for an official ruling, they wouldn't have any time for any rules design, let alone sleep or private life, right?

What would you suggest? There is no FAQ button in the second edition forums, and, to my knowledge, Paizo has no equivalent of Sage Advice. How else are we to get official answers to our questions other than asking them?

There’s nothing wrong with asking them, I just wouldn’t necessarily expect an answer in this case (I mean, I accept you find the rules vague, but most people don’t seem to).

Consider someone asking for an “official ruling” on how stat boosts work. Do you think the devs should give one?

FWIW, I think the closest equivalent to sage advice might be Arcane Mark - Mark Seifter runs a regular spot on twitch. He’s pretty good at answering any question and whilst it’s not technically “official”, an answer from one of the designers of PF2 will probably get you the answer you want in this sort of situation (ie how they meant it to work).

One of the great things about Mark’s answers is that he’ll often discuss why they settled on a particular rule or sketch out some alternatives they passed through as the rules went through their various iterations.

[CrystalSeas]

Thomas Keller wrote:

There is no FAQ button in the second edition forums,

Have you have you thought about why there is no FAQ button in the second edition forums?

Do you think staff absentmindedly forgot to add it? Or do you think it might be a conscious choice on their part to delay giving official answers until sometime later in the process of rolling out PF2.

If it was a conscious choice, then it just might be true that there is no way to get official answers to our questions here in the forums right now.

You may have to wait for the FAQ button to appear.

[Joyd]

If they were going to take time to explicitly clarify rules, I'd also hope that they'd spend that time on rules questions for issues that are not things that are clearly, consistently, and unambiguously addressed in the CRB.

[Thomas Keller]

Steve Geddes wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

You do realize that if Devs would answer every time somebody asks for an official ruling, they wouldn't have any time for any rules design, let alone sleep or private life, right?

What would you suggest? There is no FAQ button in the second edition forums, and, to my knowledge, Paizo has no equivalent of Sage Advice. How else are we to get official answers to our questions other than asking them?

There’s nothing wrong with asking them, I just wouldn’t necessarily expect an answer in this case (I mean, I accept you find the rules vague, but most people don’t seem to).

Consider someone asking for an “official ruling” on how stat boosts work. Do you think the devs should give one?

FWIW, I think the closest equivalent to sage advice might be Arcane Mark - Mark Seifter runs a regular spot on twitch. He’s pretty good at answering any question and whilst it’s not technically “official”, an answer from one of the designers of PF2 will probably get you the answer you want in this sort of situation (ie how they meant it to work).

One of the great things about Mark’s answers is that he’ll often discuss why they settled on a particular rule or sketch out some alternatives they passed through as the rules went through their various iterations.

Thank you for your kindness and for giving actual usable advice.

[graystone]

Thomas Keller wrote:

Sorry, as I said, I thought this was the place to request a ruling.

It's not that this is the wrong place: it's probably the best place we currently have right on site right now. The fact is there isn't an official 'get you official answer here' place to post. Even in the old FAQ days, clicking FAQ was never a guarantee of an timely answer or any answer at all.

Complicating things is that your questions seem fairly straight forward from a RAW standpoint: where a questionable rule would spur debate on how it should be read, everyone here is reading them the same way so the debate instead goes to 'what's confusing?' As such, you might have to manage your expectation on replies.

IMO
#1 "Learn a Spell" is ONLY for gaining access to spells outside of normal leveling. This would normally be uncommon+ spells.
#2 Hard Limit. The spell section makes it clear spell repertoire is "determined by your character level and class." "Learn a spell" confirms this by saying "if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells." This means it JUST adds it to your options and not directly to your spell repertoire: you have to take it as your spell you gain from leveling, either your new spell or your swap.
#3 100% none. Nothing in ability scores, spells or any of the spell casting classes makes any mention of bonus spells. There is only 3 mentions of bonus spell in the entire book and it's with the Spell Blending thesis and even then, it's in reference to Bonus spell SLOTS. [I did a search of the entire PDF for 'bonus spell']

[Captain Morgan]

No one's questions are being answered right now, or very few are at least. That includes things which are actually unclear. Your questions are not.

You could post them in one of the developer twitch streams. They often answer the easy questions there. But they won't give you a different answer than everyone here is giving you.

[Thomas Keller]

graystone wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

Sorry, as I said, I thought this was the place to request a ruling.

It's not that this is the wrong place: it's probably the best place we currently have right on site right now. The fact is there isn't an official 'get you official answer here' place to post. Even in the old FAQ days, clicking FAQ was never a guarantee of an timely answer or any answer at all.

Complicating things is that your questions seem fairly straight forward from a RAW standpoint: where a questionable rule would spur debate on how it should be read, everyone here is reading them the same way so the debate instead goes to 'what's confusing?' As such, you might have to manage your expectation on replies.

IMO
#1 "Learn a Spell" is ONLY for gaining access to spells outside of normal leveling. This would normally be uncommon+ spells.
#2 Hard Limit. The spell section makes it clear spell repertoire is "determined by your character level and class." "Learn a spell" confirms this by saying "if you have a spell repertoire, you can select it when you add or swap spells." This means it JUST adds it to your options and not directly to your spell repertoire: you have to take it as your spell you gain from leveling, either your new spell or your swap.
#3 100% none. Nothing in ability scores, spells or any of the spell casting classes makes any mention of bonus spells. There is only 3 mentions of bonus spell in the entire book and it's with the Spell Blending thesis and even then, it's in reference to Bonus spell SLOTS. [I did a search of the entire PDF for 'bonus spell']

Okay, thanks. So, if I could consolidate what I think everyone is saying:

1. Wizards use Learn a Spell to learn spells (and write them in their spellbook, which brings up another question) above and beyond the two common spells they get at level up; these can be common, uncommon, or rare spells. Clerics and Druids use Learn a Spell solely to add uncommon and rare spells to the list they choose their spells from every day. Bards and Sorcerers use Learn a Spell to "unlock" uncommon and rare spells so that when they level up they can add the spell to their repertoire. They can also use it to swap a spell in their repertoire for another spell while in exploration mode. If I understand correctly, they can swap one spell for free when leveling up; they can also swap spells during downtime for free, other than the time expenditure. It only costs to swap spells during exploration. To swap out a spell for an uncommon or rare spell apparently would entail two uses of the Learn a Spell activity with double the costs of gold and time. This brings up a point: Learn a Spell is an exploration activity. How does a character add spells during downtime? I would assume the same way, but Learn a Spell does explicitly have the exploration trait. Anyway, Champions now get devotion spells, which use the Focus system, which is separate from all of this, and Rangers, err, don't get any spells anymore.

2. Everyone seems to confirm that the spell repertoire is a hard limit. This was my thought as well, someone on another forum had said differently.

3. No bonus spells. Okay. So the only reason to have a high key ability, mechanically, is to increase spell DC and certain skill modifiers.

Thanks everyone for their posts and please correct any false notions I've had here.

Oh, the other question about Wizards was this: does adding a spell to their spellbook, other than the two free on level up, cost them extra money, for the special inks and what-have-you?

[Wheldrake]

Just ignore insults, they are commonplace with some forum denizens. Not everyone has a good charisma score IRL. <g>

This said, the folks who insisted that you are very unlikely to get a dev response to your questions were right. The upside is, for the questions you asked, we don't need a dev response because the answers are in the CRB. Some other questions remain undetermined, but the questions you asked were relatively easy.

Your summary in the previous post was spot on, BTW.

- Wizards can scribe loads of spells in their spellbook(s).
- Sorcerers simply unlock access, then have to decide what to choose when swapping spells or leveling up.

It does seem odd, coming from PF1, that there is no INT requirement for learning spells, regardless of level. But that's the way of it, in PF2.

[David knott 242]

Maybe we should create threads with "FAQ Proposal" in their titles followed by the general subject of the proposed FAQ. Paizo folks might then come back with "Please don't put FAQ in the thread title, just click on the FAQ button -- Oh."

The biggest flaw in the title of this thread is that it gives no clue what the three questions are about.

[PossibleCabbage]

I feel like we need some idea about what the way official rulings or updates are disseminated to the people before we figure out how to petition for them.

Since on Paizo Fridays that one time they seemed like they weren't going to do things like they did before regarding FAQs.

[Thomas Keller]

Quote:

Learn a Spell is an exploration activity. How does a character add (or swap) spells during downtime? I would assume the same way, but Learn a Spell does explicitly have the exploration trait.

If I could just beg indulgence and put this forward for discussion.

[graystone]

Thomas Keller wrote:

Quote:

Learn a Spell is an exploration activity. How does a character add (or swap) spells during downtime? I would assume the same way, but Learn a Spell does explicitly have the exploration trait.

If I could just beg indulgence and put this forward for discussion.

You declare your action for the day as Learning Spells. After that, follow the Learn a Spell Action

#1 Spend 1 hour per level of the spell, during which you must remain in conversation with a person who knows the spell or have the magical writing in your possession.
#2 Have materials with the Price indicated in Table 4–3.
#3 Attempt a skill check for the skill corresponding to your tradition (DC determined by the GM, often close to the DC on Table 4–3).

The only thing up in the air is how many total hours you get per day: subsist allows you to do it in 8 hours instead of normal downtime so it's longer than 8 but past that, it's up to the DM. Anything from 9 to 16 is possible. Once you have the total yours, subtract each spells time from it until you run out.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like we need some idea about what the way official rulings or updates are disseminated to the people before we figure out how to petition for them.

Since on Paizo Fridays that one time they seemed like they weren't going to do things like they did before regarding FAQs.

Which would be nice, because as backwards as wotc's twitter approach is... it and the sage advice pdfs are better than the faq method imo.

[Rysky]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like we need some idea about what the way official rulings or updates are disseminated to the people before we figure out how to petition for them.

Since on Paizo Fridays that one time they seemed like they weren't going to do things like they did before regarding FAQs.

Which would be nice, because as backwards as wotc's twitter approach is... it and the sage advice pdfs are better than the faq method imo.

The FAQ method provides a searchable archive, and you can serch Designer posts too.

Twitter you have to start at the recent post and just keep scrolling back.

[Ravingdork]

Thomas Keller wrote:

1. Wizards use Learn a Spell to learn spells (and write them in their spellbook, which brings up another question) above and beyond the two common spells they get at level up; these can be common, uncommon, or rare spells. Clerics and Druids use Learn a Spell solely to add uncommon and rare spells to the list they choose their spells from every day. Bards and Sorcerers use Learn a Spell to "unlock" uncommon and rare spells so that when they level up they can add the spell to their repertoire.

I just wanted to add that, if the GM allows for it, you don't even need to go through the Learn a Spell process to get uncommon and rare spells. This would be especially true for GMs who give out such things as adventure rewards, or don't hold much love for the rarity system.

[Steve Geddes]

Rysky wrote:

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I feel like we need some idea about what the way official rulings or updates are disseminated to the people before we figure out how to petition for them.

Since on Paizo Fridays that one time they seemed like they weren't going to do things like they did before regarding FAQs.

Which would be nice, because as backwards as wotc's twitter approach is... it and the sage advice pdfs are better than the faq method imo.

The FAQ method provides a searchable archive, and you can serch Designer posts too.

Twitter you have to start at the recent post and just keep scrolling back.

I don't really like using Twitter for a rulings repository, but just for general information there is a pretty robust search function.

On twitter, if you go to the search bar and type:

From:JeremyECrawford bonus

You will see all of his tweets with the word "bonus" in them (for example).

You can also do things like put -action afterwards, if you want tweets with the word bonus but not with action (though you still get all references to bonus actions).

You can exclude retweets, look at any tweet from one person to another, put in date ranges, etcetera...

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Rysky wrote:

The FAQ method provides a searchable archive, and you can serch Designer posts too.

Twitter you have to start at the recent post and just keep scrolling back.

The issue with this is that responses aren't as quick/clear with how Paizo has handled their FAQ method in the past and knowing your question has a response is less direct/clear than if you get a response on twitter directly.

I am not saying WotC is doing it well, I am saying that they are doing it better than Paizo imo.

Sage advice pdfs got quick and frequent updates, errata documents are easily available and linked to from the same sage advice documents. And twitter posts are easily searched via sageadvice.eu (which while fan created, is easily done)

[Rysky]

Well we used to get plenty of Designer responses on the Paizo site, but that started way too many fights with people arguing so it unfortunately got axed.

The same thing would be occurring if WotC had forums.

[Ravingdork]

Rysky wrote:

The same thing would be occurring if WotC had forums.

It did occur when WotC had forums. I WAS THERE! In the end...

[graystone]

Ravingdork wrote:

It DID occur when WotC had forums. I WAS THERE! In the end...

LOL I was there too in the old days. I had a debate with Keith Baker [creator of ebberon] for MONTHS that got pretty heated that eventually resulted in him figuring out that when he made the setting he forgot that he'd been using a houserule for special materials for years and FORGOT that so when he made the setting, he made warforged walking treasure troves of special materials, as in his game you couldn't reforge them making resale impossible, and didn't add that into the setting. A designer isn't always right.

It's not solely those 'bad forum users' at fault or in the wrong. I know a LOT of times here in the old days, we'd have dueling post quotes where one dev would say one thing and another would say the opposite and the thread argued on which was more correct... Off the cuff Dev posts being official got axed in part because of that and turned into Dev opinions instead.

[CrystalSeas]

I was a mod in Astrid's Parlor.

[Campbell]

Generally even if you do get a designer response it will not be with official weight. Mark Seifter has said on numerous occasions that he can talk about how he would handle it, but that his words are not an official response. When Paizo wants to clarify things officially they will do so through more formal channels.

I am actually really glad they take this stance because it means designers are more free to engage with the community.

[Gorbacz]

If my group of 20 people I regularly game with are any indication, official FAQ/errata are tracked or even noticed by 10% of the player base. The rest doesn't even know it exists and unless they spot a glaring, obvious error (eg somethig is +1 in one place and +3 in another), they don't give a damn.

[graystone]

Gorbacz wrote:

If my group of 20 people I regularly game with are any indication, official FAQ/errata are tracked or even noticed by 10% of the player base.

I can't recall the last person I've played with that didn't use online resources [d20pfsrd/Nethys] for their characters and those get updated with the FAQ/errata automatically. So if my experiences are any indication, the number is 100% use the FAQ/errata even if they might not know about them.

[Gorbacz]

graystone wrote:

Gorbacz wrote:

If my group of 20 people I regularly game with are any indication, official FAQ/errata are tracked or even noticed by 10% of the player base.

I can't recall the last person I've played with that didn't use online resources [d20pfsrd/Nethys] for their characters and those get updated with the FAQ/errata automatically. So if my experiences are any indication, the number is 100% use the FAQ/errata even if they might not know about them.

Sure, but from the business point of view, since they're none the wiser no matter what you do, what's the ROI on FAQ/errata (apart from the super invested self-selected walking encyclopedias that populate your forum)?

[pjrogers]

Designer support in terms of errata and FAQs was one of the worst features of PF1e. I've very much been hoping that such support would be improved with this edition. However, changing this forum's name to "Rules Discussion" from "Rules Questions" and the elimination of the FAQ option cause me some concern.

Since PF2e is not an evolutionary development of PF1e but a more-or-less new beast, I think the design team needs to be more involved, not less, in resolving folks' confusion, one current example being the current uncertainty about how concealment affects magic missile.

Also, as I understand it, part of the motivation behind the creation of PF2e is to attract new players to Pathfinder. These new players are going to need support and will need to feel they're investing in a game where the design team is responsive to these newcomers' questions and rules confusion. Otherwise, I suspect they will go elsewhere.

[Gorbacz]

pjrogers wrote:

Also, as I understand it, part of the motivation behind the creation of PF2e is to attract new players to Pathfinder. These new players are going to need support and will need to feel they're investing in a game where the design team is responsive to these newcomers' questions and rules confusion. Otherwise, I suspect they will go elsewhere.

You mean, they'll go play 5e which doesn't have a forum, doesn't have a dedicated FAQ button to make people feel important and where designers don't really interact with player base? Because that's what they've been doing for the last 5 years as PF1 playerbase steadily migrated to 5e.

Having a semi-regular FAQ document and doing errata while making a new print run? Sure. Having a perpetual hotline for handling any rule question, especially ones that aren't really questions? No point.

[Claxon]

Thomas Keller wrote:

Thank you for taking the time to answer, but I'm looking for something official here.

The developers rarely (but not never) post in rule question threads unless it's to issue an FAQ after internally reviewing. The chances of getting a developer response on questions that are relatively clearly covered by the rules is very low.

Also, the developers don't like it when people come in and feel they are entitled to a direct developer response to their questions when other people can competently answer their questions and their is little disagreement about the answer.

I don't say this to be rude, but just to help you set your expectations and give you context for future requests for clarification you might make.

[Xenocrat]

Ravingdork wrote:

Thomas Keller wrote:

1. Wizards use Learn a Spell to learn spells (and write them in their spellbook, which brings up another question) above and beyond the two common spells they get at level up; these can be common, uncommon, or rare spells. Clerics and Druids use Learn a Spell solely to add uncommon and rare spells to the list they choose their spells from every day. Bards and Sorcerers use Learn a Spell to "unlock" uncommon and rare spells so that when they level up they can add the spell to their repertoire.

I just wanted to add that, if the GM allows for it, you don't even need to go through the Learn a Spell process to get uncommon and rare spells. This would be especially true for GMs who give out such things as adventure rewards, or don't hold much love for the rarity system.

Yeah, there's two different ways this can go.

1. Reclassify uncommon/rare things as common and just treat them normally.
2. Grant access to uncommon/rare things as a special reward/allowance.

Only in the latter case would the Learn a Spell process be necessary for casters who want to pickup an uncommon spell to get access to it.

[Rysky]

graystone wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

It DID occur when WotC had forums. I WAS THERE! In the end...

LOL I was there too in the old days. I had a debate with Keith Baker [creator of ebberon] for MONTHS that got pretty heated that eventually resulted in him figuring out that when he made the setting he forgot that he'd been using a houserule for special materials for years and FORGOT that so when he made the setting, he made warforged walking treasure troves of special materials, as in his game you couldn't reforge them making resale impossible, and didn't add that into the setting. A designer isn't always right.

Uh, breaking things down to reforge them into something else was already in houserule territory, unless I’m misreading your post.

Quote:

It's not solely those 'bad forum users' at fault or in the wrong. I know a LOT of times here in the old days, we'd have dueling post quotes where one dev would say one thing and another would say the opposite and the thread argued on which was more correct... Off the cuff Dev posts being official got axed in part because of that and turned into Dev opinions instead.

It didn’t happen that often I saw. It did occur yes, but not enough I felt to justify the Deva stop answering questions and visiting the forums. That all came from the community.

[Dekalinder]

Gorbacz wrote:

pjrogers wrote:

Also, as I understand it, part of the motivation behind the creation of PF2e is to attract new players to Pathfinder. These new players are going to need support and will need to feel they're investing in a game where the design team is responsive to these newcomers' questions and rules confusion. Otherwise, I suspect they will go elsewhere.

You mean, they'll go play 5e which doesn't have a forum, doesn't have a dedicated FAQ button to make people feel important and where designers don't really interact with player base? Because that's what they've been doing for the last 5 years as PF1 playerbase steadily migrated to 5e.

Having a semi-regular FAQ document and doing errata while making a new print run? Sure. Having a perpetual hotline for handling any rule question, especially ones that aren't really questions? No point.

Forums being outdated doesn't mean that 5e dev are silents. They are more active then ever (somethimes more than they should imho). And, as you can see, on platforms even more informal and inclusive than forums. 5e recieved a healty and steady flux of clarification, and some few erratas, even if they (rightly imho) mostly refrain from "balance patches" ala pf1.

[Ravingdork]

Except that there is no centralized location for such information anymore. Roleplayers have to hint down things like your link, and even when they find them, there's no guarantee that its genuine official rulings, or just someone's jaded opinion.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Ravingdork wrote:

Except that there is no centralized location for such information anymore. Roleplayers have to hint down things like your link, and even when they find them, there's no guarantee that its genuine official rulings, or just someone's jaded opinion.

There is though?

The sage advice pdf
The errata pdfs linked from the sage advice pdf
Anything stated by JC on twitter as mentioned at the very start of the sage advice pdf.

And then of course the sageadvice.eu site that allows people to quickly search/filter through twitter.