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

[Artoomis]

Except, of course ...



Therefore, if I'm using it in two hands, it's a two-handed weapon. Of course I don't get a bonus on light weapons - but, according to the FAQ, it's not a light weapon anymore.

I think you are not reading the FAQ entry too strictly - and it was not worded well enough, certainly.

Reading the FAQ entry AND the rest of the rules together, you get something like:

In combat rules, a "two-handed" weapon refers to the way you are using the weapon. For equipment rules, "two-handed" means "two-handed" for things like hardness, hit points, etc., but NOT for how it is used in combat, which sometimes varies.

Yes, the FAQ entry could have been written better, as could have the rules, Take the best of both together and it works well, I think.

A new FAQ entry is required on this topic, I think, to officially clear all this up.

 

[IcyCool]

A new FAQ entry is required on this topic, I think, to officially clear all this up.

But in the meantime, my post above is entirely correct according to the FAQ? And the opposite view is also correct? And both are the one official rule? Do you not see any problems with this?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Reading the FAQ entry AND the rest of the rules together, you get something like:

Except you can't do that. The FAQ says that the designation as one-handed, etc., is nothing more than convenience.

Not, "indicative of the way the weapon is being used currently with respect to the following situations."

The FAQ is wrong, Artoomis. Give it up.

 

[Artoomis]

But in the meantime, my post above is entirely correct according to the FAQ? And the opposite view is also correct? And both are the one official rule? Do you not see any problems with this?

Sure I see problems with this. It needs to be fixed. This is NO DIFFERENT than a contradiction published in the books. It needs to be fixed.

Meantime, a little common sense can go a long way here. If the FAQ has a contradiction or real problem like acid/sonic damage and hardness or the two-handed weapon stuff, apply a little common sense and the rule becomes very clear indeed.

Finally, instead of complaining, do something about it. Ask WotC to fix it. An official rules source that is counted on has problems - don't just whine about it, DO SOMETHING.

 

[Artoomis]

Except you can't do that. The FAQ says that the designation as one-handed, etc., is nothing more than convenience.

Not, "indicative of the way the weapon is being used currently with respect to the following situations."

The FAQ is wrong, Artoomis. Give it up.

It's PARTIALLY wrong, I think.

A new, better thought-out FAQ entry here would really help. So we have TWO failry serious errors in a 61-page rules document. No too bad really.

Have you done anything about it, or are you just whining and refusing to accept the FAQ instead of trying to help make it better?

 

[IcyCool]

Meantime, a little common sense can go a long way here. If the FAQ has a contradiction or real problem like acid/sonic damage and hardness or the two-handed weapon stuff, apply a little common sense and the rule becomes very clear indeed.

Common sense, of course, is hardly common. Also, you are proposing house ruling a troublesome area, not following the rules. Why is that?

Finally, instead of complaining, do something about it. Ask WotC to fix it. An official rules source that is counted on has problems - don't just whine about it, DO SOMETHING.

Why should I ask them to fix this, when they already have a rule that covers it? The primary source rule tells me that when the FAQ contradicts the primary source, the FAQ is wrong.

 

[Artoomis]

Common sense, of course, is hardly common. Also, you are proposing house ruling a troublesome area, not following the rules. Why is that?

No, I am proposing reading everything together, just like always. Sometimes thr rules are messed up and you have to do the best you can.

Why should I ask them to fix this, when they already have a rule that covers it? The primary source rule tells me that when the FAQ contradicts the primary source, the FAQ is wrong.

<sigh> The FAQ has been included into the primary source rule as a matter of FACT - though perhaps not by strict reading of the primary source rule. Without the FAQ it is really impossible to know what the rules are supposed to say, as that requires authoritative clarification and interpretations, at a minimum, and that material is in the FAQ.
<heavy sigh> If the FAQ were not "official" this would not be so, it would be mere advice.

 

[Artoomis]

I just sent the following in to WotC:

Three things:

1. Please fix D&D 3.5 FAQ entries on acid/sonic damage and hardness - one answer says ignore hardness, one says the opposite.

2. Please fix the D&D 3.5 FAQ entry on two-handed weapon (it includes a discussion on the lance used one-handed). The answer was written in such a way as to really mess up the weapon rules realted to (at least) hardness and hit points. Does a lance REALLY have fewer hit point when used one-handed? The FAQ entry would make this so, but clearly that was not the intent.

3. Please change the primary source rule so that it states that primary sources are the core rule, errata AND the FAQ.

See http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=153552 for why I am asking for the FAQ to be declared as a primary rule source. Note that this WILL require that FAQ entries make it very clear when thw answer is only a "best advice" kind of answer - which are ALSO appropriate in the FAQ.

Thanks.

Reference Number 051102-000118, if anyone cares.

The answers to this should be very revealing as to WotC's direction with the FAQ.

 

[Pinotage]

But in the meantime, my post above is entirely correct according to the FAQ? And the opposite view is also correct? And both are the one official rule? Do you not see any problems with this?

I think the best way to consider the FAQ until we get a response from customer service is to only apply the FAQ clarifications in the event where the RAW in the core rules is unclear or there is doubt as to what is meant. Is that a better approach or is this prone to errors?

Pinotage

 

[Artoomis]

I think the best way to consider the FAQ until we get a response from customer service is to only apply the FAQ clarifications in the event where the RAW in the core rules is unclear or there is doubt as to what is meant. Is that a better approach or is this prone to errors?

Pinotage

This works (mostly) except for those who refuse to admit when the core rules are unclear - such as some in the INA for monks debate.