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

[Borlon]

... while I feel the 'Yes' side in the monk/INA argument is probably right, I don't believe it is supported by the RAW.

What question is the 'Yes" side answering?

The question *I* am answering 'No' to is whether by the RAW (excluding the FAQ) monks can take INA.

 

[Legildur]

I see your point (and I apologise to Artoomis if I accidently hijacked the thread by using the monk/INA example).

Has anyone thought to advise WotC of these related threads? If they were aware of the degree of contention it was causing amongst the D&D world, maybe they would issue a statement (or dare I say it, errata!).

 

[Artoomis]

What question is the 'Yes" side answering?

The question *I* am answering 'No' to is whether by the RAW (excluding the FAQ) monks can take INA.

That indeed is the question in the Monk/INA thread. That is NOT the question in this thread.

 

[Borlon]

Sorry. The thread topics blurred together for a bit. Partly due to Anubis posting the same info to all three of these threads, and partly because they are all spinoffs of the same thread. I'll try to keep my comments appropriate to the thread I'm in.

 

[Pinotage]

I don't think I can vote on this poll. Does the FAQ contain rules clarifications - yep, it does. Does it contain new rules? Well, that depends on whether you define 'new' as being different to that contained in the core rules or not. I believe it contains rule not found in the core rules, in which case, yes, it does contain new rules, but I'm on the opinion that if it contains added material pertaining to core rules material, that's not new rules but clarification.

Pinotage

 

[glass]

Let's look at the most blatent example of something WotC did that is in direct contrast to this.

The "infamous" question as to whether or not prestige classes count as multiclassing for purposes of xp penalties.

The RAW (in 3.5) is that PrCs do count for XP penalties.

The FAQ does nothing to change that, because (as I may of mention once or twice before), it can't do anything to change that. What it did do was suggext a reasonabkle houserule, which pretty much everyone has adopted, whether they have read the FAQ or not.


glass.

 

[glass]

Hmmm . . . Indeed, we can't really answer it. Maybe I'll e-mail Andy Collins or the WotC web site for an answer.

Sure we can!


glass.

 

[Deset Gled]

Has anyone thought to advise WotC of these related threads? If they were aware of the degree of contention it was causing amongst the D&D world, maybe they would issue a statement (or dare I say it, errata!).

I thought that was the entire purpose behind the Primary Source Rule.

 

[Artoomis]

I thought that was the entire purpose behind the Primary Source Rule.

That "rule" would be great if WotC had not started changing the rules through the FAQ.

 

[Storm Raven]

Has anyone thought to advise WotC of these related threads? If they were aware of the degree of contention it was causing amongst the D&D world, maybe they would issue a statement (or dare I say it, errata!).

These threads are a minor, probably trivial, event in the D&D world. The number of gamers online is a fraction of the total gamers out there, and the number of gamers on ENWorld a tiny fraction of that number, and the number of people who care enough to get wrapped up in rules debates a tiny fraction of that number.

Most gamers don't care.