a couple of questions

[radmod]

Lumi have heads. Lumi are immune to Vorpal decapitation. Therefore, the FAQ answer is blatantly wrong.

I hate to disagree with you Valhalla, but isn't it written somewhere that the specific trumps the general, or something like that?
For example, "if you do something that requires a full round, such as attacking more than once, you can only take a 5-foot step", but there are feats out there that allow you take a full round attack and also move more than five feet.
So the general "only a lack of head" is trumped by the Lumi's "are immune to vorpal decapitation."
Also, when was the FAQ answer written, before or after the publication of the Lumi?

 

[Jhaelen]

Lumi have heads. Lumi are immune to Vorpal decapitation. Therefore, the FAQ answer is blatantly wrong.

Err, what?! I have to say this rates very high on my list of the most ridiculous statements I've ever seen on this board

Because the FAQ answer didn't anticipate the creation of something as unlikely as a creature with a body and a head but without a neck, it's blatantly wrong and cannot be trusted about answering anything correctly?

Doesn't the Lumi description explicitly point out that they're immune to decapitation effects?
If so, this is simply yet another example of the exception-based design that is the basis for D&D 3e.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Agree with the others. I go in before looking at any FAQ answer with the assumption it will be wrong (incorrect until proven otherwise), I have a very heavy bias against the FAQ. But this answer is actually pretty good. I can't expect them to anticipate a creature like the Lumi or necessarily remember it if it was already in print when the answer was given. It's a very strange creature.

 

[ValhallaGH]

And it still isn't completely correct. Silly FAQ, rules are for DMs.

What part?

Or is this a case of the FAQ is wrong too many times so disregard it all of the time?

In this specific case - I see nothing wrong (or in error with the rules as written) in the answer provided.

It (understandably) neglects the possibility of a head that is already disconnected from the body. Which is the Lumi situation. Not a major flaw, and certainly not one I would trouble them with, except that WotC published the damn race and put Vorpal Immune into their racial features.
*grumble* *grumble* *grouse*

Which conversation was then ignored for a page.

[sic]I don't see how this makes the FAQ answer blatently wrong in any way.

I hate to disagree with you Valhalla, but isn't it written somewhere that the specific trumps the general, or something like that?

Somewhere? Sure. In any of the core 3.5 books? No. It's in 4e, and it's an understood part of the 3.x rules (included in a couple of errata documents to help with adjudication, maybe in the DMG 2 somewhere), but it's not actually written into any of the core books.

Date of last FAQ update: 06/30/2008
Date of Monster Manual 3 (which introduced the Lumi): 09/23/2004

All I expect them to say is, "Vorpal removes heads. The only ways to avoid that are to not have a head or to be specifically immune to Vorpal."

The FAQ answer for this question, as I said in the first place is pretty solid and will do for almost every case.
But it is factually wrong.

Peace. I'm out.

 

[irdeggman]

Rules Compendium pg 5

"Order of Rules Application

The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules applications. General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster decription is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. . . ."

Now "officially" captured in a rules book.