What Specifically is Wrong with the FAQ?

[Imagicka]

Greetings...

Something has bewildered me lately, and it's been the occational comment that entries in the FAQ are wrong/bad/incorrect/misleading/whatever.

Now, granted, I haven't gone over the FAQ with a fine tooth maraset. Only because I read the first FAQ when it came out... and I've never had a disagreement that required me to look it up in the FAQ. (usually because I made a ruling on the spot that my players felt was honest and fair)

So, let me ask the folks out there...
What specifically is your particular issue with FAQ entries?

I would like to know what issue and arguements are.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Felix tried this thread a little while ago:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=168537

Here are a couple of additional links that you can pull from an repost here in this thread if you wish.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=175343
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=181464
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=181201
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=182595
http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=166298

 

[billd91]

The FAQ sometimes tries to clarify contentious issues that have opposed camps both claiming RAW support for their positions. No matter which side the FAQ supports in this regard, the other camp's members will often be so invested in their interpretations of the RAW that they will dis the FAQ.
I think we've seen that with the metamagic rod issue and two-weapon fighting recently. I'm sure I could think of more given a few minutes.

As for me, I like the FAQ most of the time because it gives me an idea how the designers look at playing the game and its rules, which may be different from how the rules come across when put down on paper (particularly if put down on paper in an ambiguous fashion). I still come to my own conclusions and house rule things the way I want them for the most part, but the FAQ lifts the curtain a little and I always like that.

 

[Rhun]

As for me, I like the FAQ most of the time because it gives me an idea how the designers look at playing the game and its rules, which may be different from how the rules come across when put down on paper (particularly if put down on paper in an ambiguous fashion).

This is assuming, of course, that the FAQ are actually written by the designer. Which they aren't, unless you are simply considering Wizards to the designer.

The basic problem with the FAQ is that they are not the RAW.

 

[Infiniti2000]

This is assuming, of course, that the FAQ are actually written by the designer. Which they aren't, unless you are simply considering Wizards to the designer.

In point of fact, the FAQ is written by the designers. Both Skip Williams (the previous author) and Andy Collins (the current author) are designers. Although the FAQ doesn't explicitly say who's answering the questions, the person answering them is the Sage.

 

[Thanee]

What I do not quite like about the FAQ is, that it is half-FAQ, half-errata. They should seperate these two better.

The FAQ should only clarify. Actual changes to the rules should go into the errata.

But apart from this and a handful of really bad rulings (i.e. the new metamagic rods ruling), the FAQ is definitely a good thing.

Bye
Thanee

 

[borc killer]

Andy Collins (the current author)

Really? Cool. I had no idea he was doing that know... i wondered why the FAQ starting making more sense...

 

[Ranger REG]

Really? Cool. I had no idea he was doing that know... i wondered why the FAQ starting making more sense...

Apparently, not everyone agree with the successor of the Sage Advice. Personally, the Sage should not be one person but a panel group.

 

[Ranger REG]

What I do not quite like about the FAQ is, that it is half-FAQ, half-errata. They should seperate these two better.

They should, but in practice, WotC haven't done much to update the errata regularly. For them, it's one of those "we'll get to it when we're not busy" tasks.

Instead, they just take the printed Sage Advice column and stuck it into the FAQ in the appropriate sections.

 

[moritheil]

What's wrong is that it spawns not one, but two contentious threads in the rules forum, thereby causing heated exchanges to take place while people ignore the other rules threads.