Can the FAQ be used to issue errata (create new rules)?

[gabrion]

I've been thinking about these debates for a while, and the more I ponder the issue, I wonder which parts of the FAQ people are considering to be "errata." I know some of you have mentioned a few (No XP penalty for PrCs and Two-handed axe stuff in the OP), but could someone who thinks active rules changes are being made in the FAQ list all the examples of this practice?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

but could someone who thinks active rules changes are being made in the FAQ list all the examples of this practice?

The problem, of course, is that if the FAQ is actually an errata source, then the only possible answer is "all of it."

 

[Anubis]

The problem, of course, is that if the FAQ is actually an errata source, then the only possible answer is "all of it."

Yes, that would be my position, and it is obviously an official position taken by WotC. I would ask Andy Collins, but none of you respect him anyway so I won't be wasting my time.

You can deny whatever you want, but in the Rules forum, the official word is all that matters. If someone asks a question about the rules, the FAQ is an official source of official rules. Source and listing are the same thing. You get information from a source, you get information from a listing, same thing. I can't figure out how anyone can think otherwise to be honest. The only difference is that a source need not be a "list" per se, but is a conglomoration of a whole bunch of stuff. A listing is a more spefici word for source, indicating a specific type of source, but even the errata file itself isn't a listing, it's a source.

The errata is no longer updated, and WotC says errata is published in the FAQ. Unltil someone of higher authority says otherwise, that is all that matters in the rules forum.

 

[irdeggman]

I've been thinking about these debates for a while, and the more I ponder the issue, I wonder which parts of the FAQ people are considering to be "errata." I know some of you have mentioned a few (No XP penalty for PrCs and Two-handed axe stuff in the OP), but could someone who thinks active rules changes are being made in the FAQ list all the examples of this practice?

I jsut found another one.

The 3.5 PHB clearly states that a druid has a prohibition on weapon usage. The FAQ changed this and it was later incorporated into the SRD. Still no errata on it. This is in no way a rules clarification since the text in the PHB is very specific on the subject.

 

[irdeggman]

Yes, that would be my position, and it is obviously an official position taken by WotC. I would ask Andy Collins, but none of you respect him anyway so I won't be wasting my time.

I like Andy but really miss Skip. He was IMO much better at Sage Advice than is Andy - although I'm sure he will grow into it.

Skip even though he made errors was pretty good at correcting them later and calling out when he "messed up" - I don't recall seeing Andy do that yet.

 

[gabrion]

The problem, of course, is that if the FAQ is actually an errata source, then the only possible answer is "all of it."

The point of the question is to figure out what is being use to make the case that FAQ=errata. The FAQ says it is not about changin rules, but people here seem to be saying "hey, we found examples where the rules are changed in the FAQ, so we are going to assume the FAQ is a new kind of errata."

I'm asking what examples support this idea (cause if we can't find actual changes to the rules in the FAQ, then the whole argument about it being errata is moot). So I'm asking again for the people who think the FAQ is doing the job of the errata, to justify this with any and all examples they have.

 

[Iku Rex]

The FAQ says it is not about changin rules, ...

Where?

 

[Iku Rex]

...could someone who thinks active rules changes are being made in the FAQ list all the examples of this practice?

I don't know about the 3.5 Main FAQ, but I went trough the other FAQs a few years ago (in a similar thread), and most of them had clear examples of errata. It's not a new development.

(Don't ask me to post the examples now - the thread has no doubt been pruned [WotC boards] and I no longer care enough to do the work again. )

 

[jdrakeh]

I think that the only answer supported by facts is suspiciously absent from the poll. That answer is, of course:

Yes, whenever WotC feels like using it to issue errata.

I say that this is the only answer supported by facts because, as people have pointed out on this thread, there are instances where the errata files supersede the FAQ (i.e., they have been incorporated into the RAW, rather than the FAQ answers) and instances where the reverse is true (i.e., instances of FAQ answers being incorporated into the RAW, rather than the solutions presented in other errata files).

The facts say that official rules have been culled from both sources, not exclusivley one or the other. In short, the argument that either the errata file or the FAQ supersedes the other is pointless - because they both supersede each other where different rules are concerned. And you can thank Wizards for that. When they chose to draw official rules from both sources, but not exclusively from either, they spawned this argument.

The truth is that little bits and pieces of the FAQ supersede rules presented in other errata files and vice-versa. Neither body of work is wholly official, but bits and pieces of both the FAQ and other, contradictory, errata documents are official. What a mess

 

[Hypersmurf]

I jsut found another one.

The 3.5 PHB clearly states that a druid has a prohibition on weapon usage. The FAQ changed this and it was later incorporated into the SRD. Still no errata on it. This is in no way a rules clarification since the text in the PHB is very specific on the subject.

Do you have a page number on that? I can't find it...

p33 and p34 both refer to armor restrictions...?

-Hyp.