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

[glass]

Smart-alecky, but correct.

And official!

And ...Of Legend.

Sorry.


glass.

 

[Legildur]

Incidentally, what do people think of starting our own FAQ? It could be frequently asked questions (topics that keep coming up in the forum) and it could also be a commentary on the official FAQ and cust serv answers, pointing out areas that are problematic (like the varying hit points of the bastard sword, or the sonic hardness issue). I think it would help people who don't trust the current FAQ and cust serv answers. It might mildly suggest rulings on these issues and others that are regarded as contentious.

I've often wondered why there wasn't such a beast. The same threads keep appearing over time as someone new discovers the Forum (and who, typically, don't have the search function). However, I wouldn't want to commit anyone to that task as it is a big undertaking.

And how would we agree on the final response to each question? Would a poll be appropriate? Or a quorum of acknowledged 'rules lawyers' chosen by EnWorld members?

I think it is a great idea, but a significant undertaking.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I disagree.

That's okay.

There is one true ruleset. The core books: PHB, MM, and DMG.

That is incorrect. It is well-established that DMs are expected to change things as necessary on a campaign-by-campaign basis.

There are different rules in different games and every player decides for themselves how to have fun, but that is not the same as a ruleset.

The one true ruleset is the common ground for which all players can relate to, regardless of how they interpret or adapt that ruleset for their game. Without that common ground, it would be more difficult for people to go from one game to another.

And why players need to consider which groups they do and do not play in. But that assumes there is no one True Ruleset.

Chess too has a ruleset. Not every game of chess follows it. Many do.

There are many variations to the chess ruleset. The ruleset used depends on the context of the game.

This is a rules forum. I come here to discuss rules. I do not come here to discuss house rules (although that often happens). I prefer house rule topics and general discussion topics to move to the appropriate forums.

I do also.

I also come here to see how people interpret the rules and get guidance on how I can be the most fair and maximize the fun-factor for all involved.

The House Rules forum is specifically for new character classes, new prestige classes, new monsters, alternate spell-casting systems and the like. That's how it was when it was started. You would know that--you've been here that long.

Some rules are borderline and subject to a variety of interpretations. That cannot be helped. Many rules, though, are explicit.

When the rules are explicit, you don't get the heatedness. You get three or four posts that explain where in the core books the generally accepted rules are. When the rules are not explicit, we find this forum devolve into what it has become over the last few months.

I choose to not throw out the baby with the bathwater, even if you do not. Many rules are rules. And when it is illustrated that I am wrong on a rule, I will admit it and "change sides" (although many others will not).

Don't worry about other people and how they play the game.

Please do not come to Morrus' Rules Forum and tell us it is ok for it to be a House Rules Forum (i.e. there is no one authority for rules). If Morrus wants to do that, it is his perogative.

I clarified what the purpose of the forums is.

Please feel free to come to Morrus' Rules Forum and tell us when we are misbehaving. Two different topics, even if bad behavior does sometimes result from being passionate about the rules. Fix and correct the behavior problem. Do not attempt to fix the passion about the rules and their nuances and their consistency. That's what makes the game great for some of us.

You're now misbehaving.

I am attempting to fix the passion about the rules by letting you take a couple days out to rethink things. See you on Wednesday.

Feel free to go to the Meta forum and contact me via e-mail.

 

[FireLance]

And how would we agree on the final response to each question? Would a poll be appropriate? Or a quorum of acknowledged 'rules lawyers' chosen by EnWorld members?

I don't think it is even possible to have a "final response" to some questions, since the rules are unclear, can have different valid interpretations, or just do not cover the situation. Furthermore, I'm starting to think that it is no longer sufficient to determine what is "RAW", or what is "official". Different people like to play different types of games. A rule that works well in one game might not work well in another. What I think is lacking is good, solid advice on how to apply the rules to achieve the type of game you want.

So, to revisit the question on whether monks can take Improved Natural Attack, the FAQ entry might go something like this (please feel free to improve on it if you feel I've missed out on anything):

Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack?

The SRD states that "A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." The Feats section of the D&D FAQ states that "spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons" includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack.

However, it can be argued that a feat's only "effects" are the items listed under its "Benefit" section. By this interpretation, a monk's unarmed strike is not considered a natural weapon for the purposes of qualifying for Improved Natural Attack, and a monk may not take the feat unless he has a natural weapon (e.g. he is of a race that has a natural weapon).

DM Advice

Improved Natural Attack boosts a monk's combat ability significantly. A monk whose base unarmed strike damage is 1d8 increases it to 2d6, an average increase of 2.5 points, if he selects this feat. This is higher than the damage bonus that a fighter can obtain by selecting Weapon Specialization. The increase in average damage from the feat gets larger as the monk's base unarmed strike damage increases. A monk whose base unarmed strike damage is 2d8 increases it to 3d8, an average increase of 4.5 points. This is higher than the damage bonus that a fighter can obtain by selecting both Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization.

On the other hand, a monk's base unarmed strike damage tends to outstrip a fighter's base weapon damage anyway. At 8th level, a monk's unarmed strike deals as much base damage as the best one-handed weapons in the core rules, at 12th level, it deals as much base damage as the best two-handed weapon in the core rules, and at 16th level and up, it deals more base damage than any weapon in the core rules. Hence, this is an area in which the monk already does better than the fighter.

Allow monks to take Improved Natural Attack if you want to boost the combat abilities of the monks in your campaign. Bear in mind that this will narrow the gap between monks and the other combat-oriented classes, and that monks already get several other special abilities.

I think it is a great idea, but a significant undertaking.

Agreed. I wouldn't mind contributing to the effort, though.

 

[Legildur]

<snip>Agreed. I wouldn't mind contributing to the effort, though.

Well, there's one brave soul (thanks Firelance). Any others? And by the way, I admire your (brave) choice of first answer for the FAQ

Another interesting one has been the current thread talking about reaching into a square with a cure wounds spell and whether that provokes an AOO (and what happens afterwards if you have 2 creatures of similar sizes in the same square who are not grappling).