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

[Artoomis]

... Official sources, yes, authoritative no. But maybe I don't understand what you mean by authoritative.

Authoritative means, in this case, it's what the rules ARE. If you want to know what the real rules are, look to the written rules plus errata plus the FAQ.

That's what authoritative means. Carrying the full authority of the rules.

Let me put in another way. If you want to know the "offical" rule for any particular scenario look to the rules, errata and FAQ. Send a note to customer service if you find anything that looks wrong or contradictory.

The FAQ contains official intrepretations and clarifcations of the rules as well as, in some cases, actual changes to the rules that carry the same weight as errata. That's the reality of the situation.

In other words, the base-line rules for any game are the books, errata and FAQ. After that, you make your own rulings and/or house rules to fit your gaming group as needed.

 

[Artoomis]

As are many on these and similar forums. So, irrelevant.

Not irrelevant as they are doign so from thet represent WotC (the owners of the rules) and we do not.

Consistency is a principle concern and that has shown to be false. Even if we can accept that different people rule differently (even on this forum, e.g. Patryn and Hyp can rule differently), the FAQ should never be self-contradictory. Never.

Correct. The are REALLY trying to correct this - and they'll fix things IF we point them out. There really is limited staff and money available to spend on non-revenue generating customer service - they need our help.

That's likely the goal, but this is arguable. Their interpretation of the RAW, and interpretation is the reason forums like this exist. Without arguing interpretation, we should just close down this forum. In fact, I see no reason why you, Anubis, and others even bother posting here except to berate us for not using the FAQ and considering it, the Sage, and WotC as the word of God...

I think few would agree with you on my reasons for being here. You should know that I've expressed my own interpretations plenty of times, issued my own advice for folks running their games, and I really do like to argue whether WotC has made the "right" ruling in the FAQ per the RAW. Still, I recognize that the FAQ is one of the three parts of the "official" rules - books, errata and FAQ.

I've also NEVER, EVER said the Sage carries the same weight - at least not until published into the FAQ.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Authoritative means, in this case, it's what the rules ARE. If you want to know what the real rules are, look to the written rules plus errata plus the FAQ.

Absolutely not. I purchased my books (say we consider only the three core books) and WotC cannot authoritatively tell me that they change without one of two things: (1) issue errata, (2) create a new version or printing. In 3.0 they also did the second option. Unless they make the same statement in the FAQ that they did in the errata, the FAQ to me is only useful as an Official guide of WotC interpretations and certainly not rules. I definitely appreciate the work they have put into it, and I read it, but I don't think of them as rules.

Correct. The are REALLY trying to correct this - and they'll fix things IF we point them out. There really is limited staff and money available to spend on non-revenue generating customer service - they need our help.

Actually, no they won't. They haven't revised the errata and the Customer Service Rep flat-out said that they don't plan to. I have no idea why they refuse to do that and no answer seems to be forthcoming. It's a proven fact that they use errata to clear up confusion (DR as Ex or Su) as well as errors (weapon finesse for monsters, hardness/hp for shields) and rules changes (righteous might, divine favor, INA taken multiple times).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Authoritative means, in this case, it's what the rules ARE. If you want to know what the real rules are, look to the written rules plus errata plus the FAQ.

So, do Acid and Sonic damage ignore hardness?

What're the hit points and hardness for a medium bastard sword?

 

[Artoomis]

Absolutely not. I purchased my books (say we consider only the three core books) and WotC cannot authoritatively tell me that they change without one of two things: (1) issue errata, (2) create a new version or printing. In 3.0 they also did the second option. Unless they make the same statement in the FAQ that they did in the errata, the FAQ to me is only useful as an Official guide of WotC interpretations and certainly not rules. I definitely appreciate the work they have put into it, and I read it, but I don't think of them as rules.

You are free to do as you like - but realize that WotC considers the FAQ to have the same weight as the books an errata.

Actually, no they won't. They haven't revised the errata and the Customer Service Rep flat-out said that they don't plan to. I have no idea why they refuse to do that and no answer seems to be forthcoming. It's a proven fact that they use errata to clear up confusion (DR as Ex or Su) as well as errors (weapon finesse for monsters, hardness/hp for shields) and rules changes (righteous might, divine favor, INA taken multiple times).

But they ALSO have made it clear that the FAQ has the same weight as errata. Ignore that if you like, that's your choice, but don't deny that this is WotC's position on the matter.

 

[Artoomis]

So, do Acid and Sonic damage ignore hardness?

What're the hit points and hardness for a medium bastard sword?

1. This is obviously a contradiction within the FAQ that is no different than a published rule error. They obviously need to fix this. And no, they do not ignore hardness (right?). Since this is obviously a concern for you, have you contacted WotC and asked them to fix this?

2. Sorry - you'll have to remind me of the issue here and why you are asking this question.

 

[IcyCool]

1. This is obviously a contradiction within the FAQ that is no different than a published rule error. They obviously need to fix this. And yes, they do ignore hardness. Sionce this is obviously a concern for you, have you contacted WotC and asked them to fix this?

There, I fixed that for you. Now it is correct via the FAQ. Oh, wait ...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

1. This is obviously a contradiction within the FAQ that is no different than a published rule error. They obviously need to fix this.

Obviously. But the FAQ is right! It must be right! Etc.!

2. Sorry - you'll have to remind me of the issue here and why you are asking this question.

Check the FAQ again:

Q: You can get a host of benefits from wielding a twohanded weapon, such as 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage (and twice your damage bonus from the Power Attack feat) and a +4 bonus on your opposed attack roll if someone tries to disarm you. So when is a weapon “twohanded?” For example, a lance is a two-handed weapon, right? But you can wield it in one hand when you’re mounted. Since the weapons table shows that a lance is a two-handed weapon, I get all the two-handed benefits no matter how I wield the lance, right?

A: Wrong. Table 7–5 in the Player’s Handbook lists weapons as light, one-handed, or two-handed strictly as a matter of convenience. These size categories are always relative to the wielder’s size, as explained in some detail in the section on weapon size on page 113 in the Player’s Handbook (also see next question).

When the combat rules speak of “two-handed” weapons, they’re referring to how the weapon is being used. A Medium character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a “two-handed” weapon. The same character using a Medium lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed weapon. Light weapons are an exception. If you wield a light weapon in two hands you get no advantage on damage (see page 113 in the Player’s Handbook). Likewise, you always take a –4 penalty on your opposed roll when you’re wielding a light weapon in a disarm attempt (when someone tries to disarm you or you try to disarm someone) regardless of whether you wield it one- or two-handed.

Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points
Weapon or Shield Hardness HP1
Light blade 10 2
One-handed blade 10 5
Two-handed blade 10 10
Light metal-hafted weapon 10 10
One-handed metal-hafted weapon 10 20
Light hafted weapon 5 2
One-handed hafted weapon 5 5
Two-handed hafted weapon 5 10
Projectile weapon 5 5
Armor special2 armor bonus x5
Buckler 10 5
Light wooden shield 5 7
Heavy wooden shield 5 15
Light steel shield 10 10
Heavy steel shield 10 20
Tower shield 5 20
1 The hp value given is for Medium armor, weapons, and shields. Divide by 2 for each size category of the item smaller than Medium, or multiply it by 2 for each size category larger than Medium.
2 Varies by material.

 

[Artoomis]

There, I fixed that for you. Now it is correct via the FAQ. Oh, wait ...

Smart-alecky response duly noted.

 

[Pinotage]

I've seen one or two things in the FAQ that are frequently called upon as being incorrect. Does somebody have a list of those few things that are supposedly incorrect. I think you'll find there aren't that many. A handful of errors is a poor excuse to discredit an entire document.

Pinotage