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

[Coredump]

I wouldn't mind so much, if the FAQ listed when it was making a new ruling, clarifying, offering a house rule, etc. But is so often just 'says stuff', with apparenlty little regard for what the rules already say about it.

If the FAQ said "Consider it Errata that you can sheathe as a free action" then I would give it more credit. But id can't even stay consistent *internally*, and it rarely says when it is making new rules, so it has no credibility.

Star Wars (jedi Counseling) is awesome in this regard, when they answer questions, it is obvious when they are clarifying rules, making changes in the rules, and just offering optional/house rules.

Now, I am not sure if I trust the FAQ writer as much as I do the JC writer...


Question: Were *ALL* of the changes in the 3.0 FAQ incorporated into 3.5??

 

[Hypersmurf]

Question: Were *ALL* of the changes in the 3.0 FAQ incorporated into 3.5??

No - not even those that didn't become irrelevant.

For example, Skip's house rule about invisible creatures not providing a flanking bonus from the 3E FAQ doesn't appear in the 3.5 PHB. (It does, however, appear in Skip's Rules of the Game column for 3.5.)

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

Those who say "no" seem to keep ignoring the following statement from WotC, as well as evidence presented showing WotC has already issued errata in the FAQ (except for one counter argument that stretches to call FAQ errata mere "clarification'):

These game rule FAQs do not cover errata found in the errata documents.

Note that this leaves open the possibilty to include addition of errata NOT found in errata documents. Now I agree that this is really an abuse of the normal concept of a FAQ and errata, but it DOES seem to be what WotC is doing.

It's all well and good to argue what a FAQ SHOULD BE, I am asking what this FAQ REALLY IS. I submit, that by WotC's own defintion, this FAQ covers many areas, including errata not found in the errata docuements.

They easily could have stated: "These game rule FAQs do not cover errata." That would have been GREAT. Alas, they did not do that. It appears that the language deliberately excluded errata found in errata documents only.

 

[Artoomis]

I wouldn't mind so much, if the FAQ listed when it was making a new ruling, clarifying, offering a house rule, etc. But is so often just 'says stuff', with apparenlty little regard for what the rules already say about it.

If the FAQ said "Consider it Errata that you can sheathe as a free action" then I would give it more credit. But id can't even stay consistent *internally*, and it rarely says when it is making new rules, so it has no credibility...

"No credibility" is a bit harsh, but I get your point - as I mentioned in my first post. I have never actually said the FAQ is a CREDIBLE source of errata, only that WotC has made it a source of errata, albeit one that is hard to use because they do not make it clear which of the four items I mentioned above each item might be.

 

[Silveras]

FAQ entries are "official, certainly, but, more importnatly, they are allowed by WotC to change core rules. General Sage advice and customer service are not allowed to do that.

Uhm... you DO know that the FAQ is basically just a compilation of the Sage Advice artivles ? So when you say that the FAQ can change the rules but Sage Advice cannot, you are contradicting yourself.

I agree that the FAQ has been used to state that some rules are written incorrectly. I also agree that such corrections should be in the Errata, instead. Ideally, they would be in both places, with proper notation that they are corrections in the FAQ, so that the widest number of people can become aware of them.

However, aside from how WotC and/or the developers decide to present corrections and explanations, the decision as to which to apply to the game is solely in the hands of the DM and players. The core rules are subject to adjustment/revision to suit the needs of the game being run; likewise, any corrections are just as much subject to being used or ignored. Only in cases like Organized Play, where there is a need for an absolute consistent standard, can anyone mandate "you must use these rules".

 

[Artoomis]

Uhm... you DO know that the FAQ is basically just a compilation of the Sage Advice artivles ? So when you say that the FAQ can change the rules but Sage Advice cannot, you are contradicting yourself. ..

Nope - no contradiction. Not all Sage Advice makes it into the FAQ, and some, I think, is editted before it is published in the FAQ. Further, only the FAQ has a statement that states (or strongly implies, at least) is might be used for errata not published in the errata documents.

I do agree with you that this is mostly an intellectual excercise as the actual rules used in any game are up to the DM and group playing that game - with teh exception of Organized Play, of course. Intellectual exercises can be fun, though.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Those who say "no" seem to keep ignoring the following statement from WotC, as well as evidence presented showing WotC has already issued errata in the FAQ (except for one counter argument that stretches to call FAQ errata mere "clarification'):

These game rule FAQs do not cover errata found in the errata documents.

Note that this leaves open the possibilty to include addition of errata NOT found in errata documents.

That's one way of reading it, I suppose. Another would be: "These game rule FAQs do not cover errata, which can be found in the errata documents." Or in other words: "These FAQs and the answers given do not constitute official rules errata."

My position is this, though: regardless of what WotC may think or say, any actual change to the core rules that doesn't appear in the errata documents isn't errata. And based on the number of known errors in the FAQ, only a very foolish customer would accept any claim the FAQ might make to hold "authority of errata."

In my experience, those who claim the FAQ has "already issued errata" generally base that claim on "changes" to the rules they think the FAQ has made, when in fact those people simply didn't understand the rules correctly, and the FAQ's clarification seems to them to be a "change" in the rules. There may be exceptions, but as I just finished saying, no matter what WotC may think, I don't accept the FAQ as a source of errata.

 

[Artoomis]

That's one way of reading it, I suppose. Another would be: "These game rule FAQs do not cover errata, which can be found in the errata documents." Or in other words: "These FAQs and the answers given do not constitute official rules errata."

Of course, reading it that way actually CHANGES the sentence.

My position is this, though: regardless of what WotC may think or say, any actual change to the core rules that doesn't appear in the errata documents isn't errata.

Only if WotC defines it that way, which is seems NOT to be the case.

And based on the number of known errors in the FAQ, only a very foolish customer would accept any claim the FAQ might make to hold "authority of errata."

Well, I did not say it was a good idea to rely on the FAQ, in fact, I do state that it is difficult to do so.

In my experience, those who claim the FAQ has "already issued errata" generally base that claim on "changes" to the rules they think the FAQ has made, when in fact those people simply didn't understand the rules correctly, and the FAQ's clarification seems to them to be a "change" in the rules. There may be exceptions, but as I just finished saying, no matter what WotC may think, I don't accept the FAQ as a source of errata.

Okay - YOU don't accept it. Fine. But WotC publishes it that way, which is the point. IF you chose to, you could refuse to accept teh printed errata and go with teh books as published, too. that's your choice, which is NOT what this discussion is about. It's about whether WotC publishes errata in the FAQ - not about whether you choose to accept it as valid.

In other words, is WotC actually using the FAQ to publishes some rule changes (aka errata) or not? Note I am NOT asking if you think it's a good idea or if you think it's valid of them to do so, but do you agree that they actually are doing this with the expectation that we accept it as valid.

 

[Coredump]

Those who say "no" seem to keep ignoring the following statement from WotC, as well as evidence presented showing WotC has already issued errata in the FAQ (except for one counter argument that stretches to call FAQ errata mere "clarification'):

These game rule FAQs do not cover errata found in the errata documents.

Note that this leaves open the possibilty to include addition of errata NOT found in errata documents. Now I agree that this is really an abuse of the normal concept of a FAQ and errata, but it DOES seem to be what WotC is doing.

And I read that very differently. Try this
These game rule FAQs cover the rules in the PHB and other WoTC books.
These game rule FAQs do not cover the errata that are found in the errata documents.
IOW, if you have questions about the PHB rules, here are the answers, if you have questions about the errata, there are no answers here.


I am *sure* that the FAQ covers some things that should be errata. I am also sure that it 'tries' to errata things, that are NOT errata. And it is just plain wrong sometimes, and it is contradictory sometimes. So it is like trusting the Inquirer for news, sure sometimes they are right, but I would not want to quote it for a debate.

 

[Coredump]

For example, Skip's house rule about invisible creatures not providing a flanking bonus from the 3E FAQ doesn't appear in the 3.5 PHB. (It does, however, appear in Skip's Rules of the Game column for 3.5.)

So to expand on this.

3.0 comes out, and it says nothing about invis creatures *not* providing a flanking bonus.
In the 3.0 FAQ, Skip says "Invis creatures do not provide flanking bonus" and people say "See, it is in the FAQ, that is as good as errata!
Then 3.5 comes out. And lo and behold, it is *not* in the rules again.
And again, Skip decides that they still shouldn't. And once again people claim that it should be accepted as FAQ.

See where the problem lies? Intellectually, sure, they may use the FAQ as errata, but they also use it to publish house rules, and to contridict themselves, and to *casually* get the rules wrong. So a dictionary that spells *some* words right, and some wrong, is worthless.

The way the present what turn out to be rule changes, are often done in a very casual manner, that does *not* seem to indicate that they are even aware that they are changing the rules. When he casually says you can sheathe a weapon while moving... is that errata? Its not like he said "Despite what it says in the rules, you can do this". It sure sounds more like a mistake than anything else. And while he is a designer, he is only one designer, and he does seem to get things just plain wrong sometimes, and even contradict his *own* answers.

So we are supposed to assume that he is correct? ever?