FAQ Errors

The FAQ is possibly the least trusted rules source on these boards, at least in the Rules Forum. Some folks don't understand why lots of posters dislike the FAQ, and others who don't like it lack the resources to fully support their dislike of it. So in this thread I will compile all the instances where the FAQ is demonstrably contrary to the RAW.

Problem: I'm not intimiately familiar with all of them. So please, post your thoughts and provide citations if you can. Thanks.

The criteria will be that assuming the FAQ did not exist, what does the RAW say about the subject. It will be noted if and when the RAW is ambiguous.

-----------------------

1. The FAQ states Sunder may be used multiple times in a full attack. (version 6/21/06)

• Table 8-2 clearly shows that sunder is specifically a Standard Action and may not be used when iterative attacks are available by the lack of Footnote 7.

2. The FAQ contradicts itself as to provocation of an AoO when standing up from prone as a free action using Tumble. (version 2/25/05)

• pp 24-25 that standing up as a free action with a DC 35 Tumble check provokes an attack of opportunity

• pp 26-27 states that standing up as a free action with a DC 35 Tumble check does not provoke an attack of opportunity

3. The FAQ contradicts itself as to the ability of a monk to use gauntlets and their eligibility for use in a flurry of blows. (version 6/21/2006)

• pp 11-12 states that a gauntlet is technically not an unarmed strike and an attack with one could not be part of a flurry of blows

• p 12 (the next entry) states that "a strike with a gauntlet is ... considered an unarmed attack" and thus may be used in a flurry of blows.

4. The FAQ states that weapon categories (light, one-handed, two-handed) are dependent upon how the weapon is wielded. (version 6/21/06)

• pp 26-27 states: "A medium character using a medium longsword in two hands is using a 'two-handed' weapon." This means that a sword's HP and hardness change depenedent upon how many hands are upon the hilt.

Nothing's perfect. But the FAQ is close enough for me.

Nothing's perfect. But the FAQ is close enough for me.

Click to expand...

Hey man, I know that some folks like and use it. But others don't. And I just want to have a central place for folks who don't that they can point to for support when others ask, "Why don't you like the FAQ". Is that not reasonable?

Felix said:

1. The FAQ states Sunder may be used multiple times in a full attack.
Table 8-2 clearly shows that sunder is specifically a Standard Action and may not be used when iterative attacks are available by the lack of Footnote 7.

Click to expand...

::chuckles:: I don't know if that's a fair statement, if you're going to point out where the FAQ is wrong- you should at least choose concrete examples- this is a very debated point... as the recent thread on this board testified.

Vorp

this is a very debated point... as the recent thread on this board testified.

Click to expand...

It's a more debated point because of the FAQ ruling. Were there no FAQ ruling, things would be simpler and clearer. That's in the criteria, so it qualifies.

---

Does anyone have any other examples?

Once upon a time, the FAQ had opposite answers to the same question, a couple of pages apart. Got cleaned up in one of the edits, sadly ... I still have each version downloaded, I'll see if I can find it.

Christian said:

Once upon a time, the FAQ had opposite answers to the same question, a couple of pages apart. Got cleaned up in one of the edits, sadly ... I still have each version downloaded, I'll see if I can find it.

Click to expand...

Found. In the FAQ version from 2/25/05, it's ruled on pp 24-25 that standing up as a free action with a DC 35 Tumble check provokes an attack of opportunity, and on pp 26-27 that it doesn't. I think that was my personal favorite FAQ-reading moment ...

Felix said:

1. The FAQ states Sunder may be used multiple times in a full attack.

• Table 8-2 clearly shows that sunder is specifically a Standard Action and may not be used when iterative attacks are available by the lack of Footnote 7.

Click to expand...

I think the FAQ is correct there.

Table 8-2 specifically notes that Sunder is an attack.

Footnote 7 is used to explain the weird cases which aren't listed specifically as attacks.

Note that by your logic, attacks may not be used when iterative attacks are available (they are listed as standard actions and lack footnote 7).

-Stuart

Note that by your logic, attacks may not be used when iterative attacks are available (they are listed as standard actions and lack footnote 7).

Click to expand...

Attack actions may not be used for iterative attacks, as they are indeed standard actions.

A full attack action, which is on the table, does allow iterative attacks explicitly, but not multiple attack actions.

More on that here.

Christian said:

Found.

Click to expand...

Added.

---

As Lord High Original Poster, I would also ask that though dissent is welcome, I would rather this not turn into a full debate. Rather, let us spawn other threads or reference folks to threads if they are already in gear. Thank you.

I think it is only fair that we also post where the FAQ is not contrary to the RAW (or itself for that matter). And then maybe we can tally up the "suitable answers" vs. "contradicting ones". Seems like the only right thing to do. Best to show both sides. Just because a document has a couple errors, doesn't mean the entire thing is wrong.

I think the other reason a lot of people don't like the FAQ is because when it clarifies a rule, a lot of times it is not the answer the person was looking for. So it must be "wrong". That isn't how I would rule it, so I will ignore the FAQ as a whole. I'm not saying all the time, certainly the FAQ can contradict the RAW and itself here and there. And those are valid complaints that should be noted.