What do you think of the faq?

[radmod]

Ignore, for the moment, that the DM is the final arbiter of the rules. It seems many people see the faq as the definitive answer to the rules. I am beginning to question whether we should or not.

the_orc_within asked that if you somehow manage to grapple a dragon, can you prevent his BW by keeping his mouth shut. Researching an answer in the faq, I found a similar question. Someone wanted to know if a Dragonfire Adept could still use his BW when grappled. The answer was that the RC did not list a SU as something you could do while grappling and they said to check with your DM. I thought that was kind of a wimpy answer.

Likewise, I happened to run across this question: If you win a grapple in an Evard's and stay in the field do you have to make a grapple check each round? Their answer was that since the spell works a) when it is cast and b) when a person moves into the field then c) you become immune to the field if you stay in it.
As a DM, I thought this was a dumb answer. The tentacles specifically are 'waving' about. That seems to me to mean that if you remain, or move within the area then you would have to continue making checks. (Note: also in my view, if you win the check then per the grapple rules you end the action by moving to an adjacent area. If you have a move action left then most characters would be able to exit the 20' radius field)

I guess what I've always looked for is a clarification of RAI, but now I begin to question their answers.

 

[Dandu]

FAQ's advice. Not RAW, not necessarily RAI either since the person writing it might not have been the one writing the rule being clarified.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The RAW and my interpretations of the rules are primary*, and I see them as guidance. I view them as a RAI, though I recognize they sometimes seem WAY off.


* Including, of course, well-reasoned suggestions from my players.

 

[HoboGod]

The FAQ is good for learners. It is a list of questions from which an inexperienced player should benefit that comes with a list of answers which tell an inexperienced player that an answer for everything can exist. Are they always the correct and complete answer? Nope! But that's not so important to someone with limited knowledge.

It's kinda like wikipedia, there may be some crossed facts, personal bias, and rash conclusions to ongoing studies, all presented as the holy truth, but when one is not a scholar of any given subject, it tends to educate one on that subject WAY more than people give credit.

 

[Uder]

The FAQ document works as a starting point, but in the end it's only another DM's opinion. If anything, it's a good idea to read it over at least once so you can anticipate your own answers for tough DM calls.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

The FAQ should be ignored with a vengeance. While it has the occasional good answer, it also has answers blatantly against RAW and other answers less clear if they go against RAI, but are atrocious none the less.

I'd rather bumble through as a DM on my own and houserule in a sensible manner when necessary, with player input, than to get guidance from the FAQ. Even if it were half right (which I don't think is the case), a bad rule given credence because it's on the WotC "offical website" (even if the FAQ itself isn't "official") is more damaging to the game than a good ruling is beneficial. In the latter case, all the FAQ did was save me a little thought and possibly some trial and error time.

 

[Theo R Cwithin]

I usually forget to look at the FAQ or Rules of the Game articles until someone mentions them. Typically, I'll always try to hash out rules and definitions from the core (or, more likely, the SRD), then come and search/ask here.

One thing I do like about the FAQ is that it usually gives more than just yes/no or simple one-word answers. Seeing their reasoning isn't always particularly useful, but sometimes it helps open up another line of thought-- or definitively shut one down.

 

[IronWolf]

FAQ's advice. Not RAW, not necessarily RAI either since the person writing it might not have been the one writing the rule being clarified.

One thing I do like about the FAQ is that it usually gives more than just yes/no or simple one-word answers. Seeing their reasoning isn't always particularly useful, but sometimes it helps open up another line of thought-- or definitively shut one down.

I agree with these statements. Sometimes I think the FAQ does have valuable insight and clarifies some things. Then there are others that seem more blatantly incorrect or at the very least now how I would rule it even after reading their explanation.

I have no issues looking at it to get a feel for something or to see if a question was addressed. Ultimately though, it is the DM running the game's decision that stands.

 

[Deset Gled]

The FAQ should be ignored with a vengeance. While it has the occasional good answer, it also has answers blatantly against RAW and other answers less clear if they go against RAI, but are atrocious none the less.

Would you care to list the answers that you think are "blatantly against RAW"?

I certainly agree that the FAQ is not perfect. In fact, a number of years ago I made similar statements to what you just said. But when pressed on the subject I started doing an in depth read-through and found that the number of incorrect answers is (statistically) much lower than I had originally thought.

Also, I would point out that many answers that are "less clear" or otherwise controversial rulings are answering problems that are ambiguous going by the RAW, which is exactly the type of thing that the FAQ is designed for (even if you happen to disagree with some of the rulings).

 

[radmod]

Also, I would point out that many answers that are "less clear" or otherwise controversial rulings are answering problems that are ambiguous going by the RAW, which is exactly the type of thing that the FAQ is designed for (even if you happen to disagree with some of the rulings).

Which, of course, makes the faq more 'worthless' to the person who disagrees with said answer.