Can the FAQ be used to issue errata (create new rules)?

There are several other discussions on this. This one is to discuss ONLY whether the FAQ scope includes issuing errata/new rules. Use examples as needed, but only to support your position, please.

WotC said:

Do you have questions about the D&D game rules? Download the official FAQ that best suits your needs. Each FAQ is presented in PDF format so that you can download it, print it, and take it to your game. They feature a date code in the footer so you can always be sure that you have the most current version. (These game rule FAQs do not cover errata found in the errata documents.) (emphasis added)

Click to expand...

Note that the only errata NOT found in the FAQ is that already posted in errata documents - WotC is letting us know they will use the FAQ as a source for errata NOT found in the errata documents. And they do this. The problem, of course, is that they do not clearly label when a statement is to be considered errata and when it is not.

The result is that it's a little hard, sometimes, to figure out if a particular FAQ item is:

1. An official clarification/interpretation.
2. Merely intended as good Advice.
3. An official, actual rules change (errata).
4. Some combination of the above three that also includes an unintentional error when explaining a rule.

Further, I submit that WotC already has used the FAQ as errata - two examples (one is historical) are (thanks Hyp):

3E Main FAQ said:

The description for the shield spell says its provides three-quarters cover. Page 132 of the Player’s Handbook says an attacker can't execute an attack of opportunity against a character with one-half or better cover. So, a spellcaster with a shield spell up is immune to attacks of opportunity, even when casting spells in melee?

No. The spell description is erroneous. The spell grants a +7 cover bonus to Armor Class, not three-quarters cover. It does not negate attacks of opportunity, nor does it provide any
saving throw bonuses. The spell's cover bonus to Armor Class applies to any attacks opportunity made from the half of the battlefield covered by the shield.

Click to expand...

3.5 Main FAQ said:

The bastard sword, lance, and dwarven waraxe are all twohanded weapons that can be used in one hand under the correct circumstances (the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they’re really two-handed weapons).

Click to expand...

Also:

3.5 Main FAQ said:

In the previous version of the D&D game, having levels in a prestige class never caused you to pay the experience penalty for being a multiclass character without uneven class levels. (The prestige class levels didn’t count when D&D FAQ v.3.5 5 Update Version: 10/27/05 checking to see if you had a penalty.) The section on prestige classes in the new DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide no longer mentions that you don’t suffer an experience penalty for having levels in a prestige class. Is this a change or an error?

It’s an error. Having levels in a prestige class won’t give you an experience penalty.

Click to expand...

This last has been confirmed as being published into the new leather-bound DMG (Thanks, Caliban). It is definately not in the published errata (except insofar as the FAQ is, in part, published errata).

BTW: I do not think the FAQ should be used this way, but, unfortunately, it is, as evidenced above.

I wonder if whoever posted the "No" vote could please clarify? How does is your vote justified based upon the evidence presented above?

I posted the NO vote...

Little confusing here... To the question posted in the subject line:

Rules - Can the FAQ be used to issue errata (create new rules)?

Click to expand...

I say YES, but that is sort of a trick question. Just because a rules clairification HAPPENS to be locted in the FAQ, and then they (WotC designers) HAPPEN to include it into the SRD or next printing of the PHB/DMG/MM doesn't mean the FAQ is solely responsible for changing or adding a new rule.

To use an analogy (grant it, a bad analogy)... Let's say a Sci-Fi author writes a book (fictional book) and in this book he creates some Laws which are enforced in this fictional sci-fi world he created (ex: All psychics must be registered or face a fine and jail sentence). If by some chance this Law becomes a new state/federal Law for us in the real world, then you are saying that not only is this book responsible for creating a real Law in our society, but the book as a whole can be used as an official source for new laws. I say that is not true, it is purely coincidence.

(Like I said, a bad analogy, but one that demonstrates my poiny none the less)

So yeah, the FAQ can be used to publish new rules for D&D. But then again, so can any source.

To your actual poll question:

Is the FAQ an offcial rouce for new rules?

Click to expand...

I say that it is clearly NO until WotC comes out and revises their heirarchy of which sources trump the others.

RigaMortus2 said:

...I say that it is clearly NO until WotC comes out and revises their heirarchy of which sources trump the others.

Click to expand...

Thanks for explaining.

What about the cases above where WotC clearly stated the rules were in error and posted that information in the FAQ and did not update errata? Didn't they use the FAQ as a source for official errata?

Maybe they should not do that, but hasn't that ship already sailed?

They have done it as you mentioned, they did it in 3.0 with the polymorph spell, which was then errata'd again in the wizard's handbook then again in the psyonics handbook, and then the 3.5 series began.

I just wish they would make it clear that they are contradicting the book, and that the contradiction is done with or without authority. Then get the contradiction confirmed in the official errata.

When they are found to be full of it, they should also correct themselves.

In a company that can't get it right why is it so hard to admit they got it wrong? All I can say is it's the same where I work.

Well, I think on occasion that the FAQ is used to generate errata. Whether it should be used for this purpose or not is another question.

What we actually have are three categories of replies across all FAQ/errata documents.

1) Mistakes in the core rules. This includes things like the omission of the statement that PrCs don't count for that experience point penalty. These are things that would have been in the rulebook had someone caught the mistake in time. These should be in the errata documents (only - until the books are reprinted, anyway).

2) Clarifications of the rules as they stand in the books. I can't think of a good example off the top of my head, but there are plenty. This is a case where the rules as they are written are unclear, and the answer to the question merely explains it. (Perhaps a good example: Does Quick Draw allow a character to sheathe a weapon as a free action?) These should be in the FAQ (only).

3) Areas where the design team now want to change the rules, perhaps because they have found a problem with them as they stand, or perhaps because they just like things a different way. The example below about the Shield spell is a perfect example of this - the answer directly contradicts the RAW, and not in a manner that can be explained as a mistake in the printing of the book - this is something that they've decided needs changed.

I'm not sure where the third category of material should go. I do believe (quite strongly, actually) that they should not be in the FAQ. I don't think they should be in the errata, either. They're not mistakes - they're changes.

In truth, I think these should either be placed in a third document (Collated Rules Updates, or something like that), or even just filed away for the next edition of the game.

Artoomis said:

Thanks for explaining.

What about the cases above where WotC clearly stated the rules were in error and posted that information in the FAQ and did not update errata? Didn't they use the FAQ as a source for official errata?

Maybe they should not do that, but hasn't that ship already sailed?

Click to expand...

See, I don't see them as rules changes, but as clarifications, which the FAQ is used for.

The example with the Shield spell (which is the 3E example) is clarifying that no AoOs can be made. They never changed the wording of the spell in 3E, they just clarified the intent.

As for the Bastard Sword example, I am at work and don't have my PHB on me too look up information I need to back me up, so I have to skip this one...

The prestige class not giving XP penalty is another clarification. It was clearly an oversight not adding it to the PHB and the FAQ clarifies this for us. If a rule is absent (by mistake, not on purpose) and it used to be in 3E, and they say "opps, yeah, that should be in there" then to me, it is a clarification, not a new rule or a rules change. If no such rule existed in 3E, and it wasn't in 3.5 either, and someone came along and asked this question, and it was posted in the FAQ and WotC said, "Yeah, that is a good idea, no XP penalty for multiclassing PrCs" then I would say it is a new rule that should be in the errata. But this isn't the case here.

Man, I wish I could fix typos in a poll.

Is the FAQ an offcial rouce for new rules?

Click to expand...

:\

Drat! I did not catch it - TWO typos!!

I voted NO.

I don't need any evidence thing. Because ANY FAQ should not provide rule erratas for ANY GAMES.

FAQ should be remain as FAQ. Any rule changes should be clearly written in Errata. This separation is needed to make a game easy to reference and understand.

And current FAQ is so inaccurate to have such credibility.

RigaMortus2 said:

...As for the Bastard Sword example, I am at work and don't have my PHB on me too look up information I need to back me up, so I have to skip this one...

Click to expand...

I look forward to your response on that one.

I guess, with a sufficiently broad interpretation of the word "clarification," the FAQ has never posted errata - but, wow, that's a real stretch, isn't it?

And what about "These game rule FAQs do not cover errata found in the errata documents." Does that not strongly imply that rules changes OTHER than published errata will be in the FAQ? They will only be excluded from the FAQ if actually published in the errata documents, right?