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

Is the FAQ an official source for new rules?

  • No, never, ever. The FAQ is limited to clarifications of rules.

    Votes: 56 51.4%
  • Yes, sometimes. The FAQ includes, in some instances, new rules (officially).

    Votes: 39 35.8%
  • Yes, in all cases. Anything published in the FAQ is authoritative.

    Votes: 14 12.8%

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

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

-Hyp.


Hmm I'll have to check my home sources. The one I have access to here does indeed not refer to weapons. Perhaps I mistakenly checked the 3.0 PHB instead. Problem with getting older. . .


Just checked it out - my bad. Must have went to the wrong pdf via recent documents. Definitely that "old" thing ate work.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Anubis Yet again.. "Source and listing are the same thing."
Think this way: Rectangles and Squares. Not all rectangles are squares but all squares are rectangles....
Not all of the source {FAQ} is errata, but all of the listing {errata} is.

The Errata is a consolidated list of all changes made 'official' by the RnD team.
The FAQ is a conglomeration of rules clarifications, Sage Opinions, and potential rules changes that {once validated} may be made 'official' in a reprint.

If WOTC were nice enough to identify what each FAQ answer was, as they do in the SW FAQ, then this whole discussion would be moot. Since they dont.. those of us who don't agree with the all or nothing approach will continue to disagree with your stance.

The problem lays with the all or nothing approach you are voicing. I agree that once a FAQ answer is incorperated into the PHB that it can be called errata. Prior to that is is unclear whether the answer can be errata, clarification, or an editing mistake.

I say jdrakeh has it right on the money.


Funny, I have asked before if you can understand.. if not agree with.. my stance on this issue. The only reponse I have gotten so far is 'WOTC HATH SPOKEN' :\

Perhaps my screen name or post count is getting in the way of being taken seriously.
Almost makes me want to change it, but after so many years of casual postings to get this far... :p
 
Last edited:

Primitive Screwhead said:
The problem lays with the all or nothing approach you are voicing.

I think that sums up the problem. An argument for all or nothing simply makes no sense in this case, for reasons that I outline in my previous post. I waited a long time before posting to this thread, but after watching two all or nothing arguments rage for more than three pages without many people pointing out the obvious... well... I figured that it was time somebody did.

I agree that once a FAQ answer is incorperated into the PHB that is can be called errata. Prior to that is is unclear whether the answer can be errata, clarification, or an editing mistake.

I'm in total agreement here (for reasons previously outlined), and what's more, it appears that this is the position that the Wizards are taking, as well (also for reasons previously outlined).

I say jdrakeh has it right on the money.

Thanks. I try ;)

Perhaps my screen name or post count is getting in the way of being taken seriously.
Almost makes me want to change it, but after so many years of casual postings to get this far... :p

Just because somebody has a large number of posts to their name doesn't mean that their opinion has weight. In point of fact, most of the Big Names in game design have relatively few posts to their names on public message boards. I tend to lend weight to posters based on the content of their contributions, rather than quantity thereof ;)
 

From another discussion:

--deleted-- It appears the quoted source was in error and I got fooled. That, my friends, is why I usually quote eveything straight from SRD/FAQ myself.
 
Last edited:

Artoomis... you point out exacly what I am talking about... the change to the rules on the Druid prohibition is very clearly errata *after* they updated the SRD.

How clear was it *before* they updated the SRD?

This leads to --> new FAQ published with new answer that is in conflict with the RAW. When can it be considered an official change to the RAW? Simple. Once the RAW has been changed or an Errata update published. *NOT* when it appears in the FAQ.

Not arguing whether WOTC is using the FAQ as a source of errata.
Not arguing whether changes to the rules appear in the FAQ.

Arguing whether FAQ Answers cannot be automatically accepted as errata.

Suggesting that, if WOTC intends on using FAQ as errata, they specifically call out rules changes in the FAQ text to avoid confusion over errata, clarification, and unintended errors.
 

Primitive Screwhead said:
Artoomis... you point out exacly what I am talking about... the change to the rules on the Druid prohibition is very clearly errata *after* they updated the SRD.

How clear was it *before* they updated the SRD?

This leads to --> new FAQ published with new answer that is in conflict with the RAW. When can it be considered an official change to the RAW? Simple. Once the RAW has been changed or an Errata update published. *NOT* when it appears in the FAQ.

Not arguing whether WOTC is using the FAQ as a source of errata.
Not arguing whether changes to the rules appear in the FAQ.

Arguing whether FAQ Answers cannot be automatically accepted as errata.

Suggesting that, if WOTC intends on using FAQ as errata, they (need to) specifically call out rules changes in the FAQ text to avoid confusion over errata, clarification, and unintended errors.
(fixed)

So are you saying the FAQ is not a valid sorce for rules changes/errata because they are doing a stinky job at using the FAQ for that purpose?

My position is they are doing a stinky job at using the FAQ for rule changes and errata but that, nonetheless, it is indeed the only official source for such changes other than the errata documents themselves which seem to be no longer updated.

My question to WotC should be answered soon, I hope - I sent it the wrong way first time around. Whoops! When I re-sent it I added in the words "primary source" - it will be interesting to see what answer I get.

FWIW, on WotC's help page they say (I find this to be less than helpful if looking for truly authoritative answers, but very helpful in general - though they left out EnWorld :\ ). Note that ony the Errata and FAQ are labeled as "official," for whatever that's worth:

http://wizards.custhelp.com/cgi-bin...F9zZWFyY2hfdGV4dD1ydWxlcw**&p_li=&p_topview=1

WotC said:
How do you find an answer to a Dungeons and Dragons® rules question?

By making full use of various pages of our website, you can look up the answers to many of your D&D questions online. Some of these resources are specifically devoted to getting players and DMs through some of the stickier parts of the rules.

1). Official D&D Rules FAQ

Since the release of version 3.5 in 2003 the official D&D Rules FAQ has been around to clarify some of the more difficult questions that come up. Over the last few years the FAQ has continued to grow, and is now a good first stop for getting a ruling clarified. It is also a good read for anyone simply wishing to expand their knowledge and mastery of the game.

2). Official D&D Errata

See something in a book that looks like it may be a mistake? Check out the errata section of our website to see if we have released an update for how that particular rule, spell, class, or anything else may work.

3). Rules of the Game Archive

The next essential site for online self-service is the "Rules of the Game" series of articles written by Skip Williams. Skip covers many of the more complex sections of the rules in this series. His current list includes such popular topics as polymorphing (including wild shape), sneak attacks, grappling, incorporeality, and making magic items.

4). Game Rules section of the D&D homepage

On top of containing links to the above three locations on the list, the game rules section of the D&D website also contains a glossary of commonly used rules terms, a consolidated listing of which books particular character classes and prestige classes are from, and a link to the D&D v.3.5 Accessory Update Booklet that helps guide players through the fairly subtle differences between versions 3.0 and 3.5 for some of our more commonly used books.

5). D&D Message Boards

For general feedback and advice on your game there is no better resource than the huge player base that frequents the online D&D message boards. There are forums for pretty much any topic you can think of including specialized boards for both Forgotten Realms and Eberron. Whether you are a dungeon master in search of a suggestion for your campaign, or a player looking for tips to help your character, look no further than here! Help is just a post away.

6). Wizards of the Coast Customer Service Department

The Wizards of the Coast customer service department has been solving D&D player issues since the year 2000, and we continue to help out anyone that finds themselves confused by a rules question. Feel free to contact us with any questions that you cannot locate the answer to, by hitting the "E-mail Us" tab at the top of this page to submit your question to us directly. Your question will receive a personalized reply from one of our skilled customer service representatives.

If you do not need to save the reply in an email (sometimes good for keeping on file to show your friends), then you could try contacting our call center during our normal hours of operation instead:

1-800-324-6496 (US/Canada) or 425-204-8069 (All other countries)

Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
 

Artoomis said:
So are you saying the FAQ is not a valid source for rules changes/errata because they are doing a stinky job at using the FAQ for that purpose?

No, I am saying that the FAQ is a valid source for rules errata ... as is this board.

This goes back to the assumption of what 'source' and 'official' mean as well as the 'all or nothing' approach.

Not all rules changes in the FAQ become errata entries in the RAW.
Therefore, until the rule change is incorperated in a reprint/SRD it carries as much weight as a house rule or clarification posted on these boards. A source of errata.

All rules changes in the Errata document do become errata entries in the RAW.
Therefore all changes listed in the Errata take precedence over previously printed RAW. A listing of errata.

IMHO, WOTC use of 'Official DnD FAQ' is used to seperate it from 'Joe Smucks DnD FAQ'... not to lend it weight as 'primary source'.

Gotta love the English language. It is so easy to misrepresent things :)
 




Remove ads

Top