AoO Refresher...

[Ogrork the Mighty]

So that shows that the FAQ is fallible, which means that you still have to rely on the RAW for the final determination. When the FAQ is not consistent with the RAW, it must be an example of when they made another mistake.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water?

I find that the so-called "inconsistencies" are often nothing more than differing subjective interpretations of the RAW.

But I'll take the fallible FAQ/Sage Advice over what some anonymous joe on the internet says any day of the week (even Sundays!).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Personally, I don't understand why these sorts of people even read the FAQ at all. If the Sage or the FAQ isn't good enough for you, then why are you reading them each and every time they get updated? Perhaps just to bash them down? Hmmm?

You're right. How could I have not seen this? I'm really just a sad, small man, with no particularly redeeming qualities. I bash the FAQ to, in some small way, compensate for the meaningless ennui that is my daily existance.

Thank you for helping me to see the light, Ogrork.

They are what they are. They're definitely more legitimate than any joe's opinion on the internet,

Legitimacy is a funny thing. In fact ...

I'd rather leave clarification to those who know the rules (and the spirit behind them) better than anyone on the net...

Yeah, I'd rather rely on Hyp, too.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I guess you take your "status" a lot more seriously than I thought. Relax. It's just a game.

There's nothing wrong with dissenting with the FAQ. Hey, everyone's got an opinion. But when that dissent becomes (often) personal attacks against game designers who seemingly can do no right, then it becomes tiresome after a while...

 

[Coredump]

I guess you take your "status" a lot more seriously than I thought. Relax. It's just a game.

There's nothing wrong with dissenting with the FAQ. Hey, everyone's got an opinion. But when that dissent becomes (often) personal attacks against game designers who seemingly can do no right, then it becomes tiresome after a while...

But he *does* make mistakes, and he *does* contradict himself. So how does that show that he 'knows' the rules better? You can claim that his status makes his 'opinions' more valued, but we are not talking about 'opinions' , we are talking about *rules as written*. And yes, his credibility is harmed each time he makes incorrect, conflicting claims.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But when that dissent becomes (often) personal attacks against game designers who seemingly can do no right, then it becomes tiresome after a while...

Point me to a single post wherein I made a personal attack against the writers of the FAQ.

I think you'll find a great number of professional attacks - as in, they're getting paid to do this, they should perform that duty at least as well as *I* do - but not a single personal attack.

And I have never, ever claimed that the designer can do no right. On the contrary, I've applauded the times they have retracted an incorrect statement and replaced it with a correct one or did their job properly and presented a well-researched, factually-correct interpretation of the RAW.

That doesn't mean I'm not allowed to criticize when they make up a new house rule, and thereby confuse an issue beyond its current state - like, say, weapon sizes, or whether or not grapple checks are actually attack rolls (the FAQ's stance on the first is in direct contradiction of the RAW and is self-contradictory on the second).

So, in summation, lay off the armchair psychology.