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

[Infiniti2000]

Just out of curiosity, this is what, the 5th thread to come out of whether or not monks can take INA?

The INA thread is like Happy Days in that respect.

 

[Coredump]

This is a bit different.

WotC sets it own rules as far as what is official and is NOT bound by convention as far as what the purpose and scope of the FAQ. In their defintion of the FAQ they left the door open to include new rules and/or rule changes.

You keep saying this like it is a fact. It is your interpretation of one line, and a parenthetical line at that.

If you actually look at what WoTC says about the FAQ, you get

Do you have questions about the D&D game rules? Download the official FAQ that best suits your needs. Each FAQ is presented in PDF format so that you can download it, print it, and take it to your game. They feature a date code in the footer so you can always be sure that you have the most current version. (These game rule FAQs do not cover errata found in the errata documents.)

And if you read the FAQ and see what it says about itself you get

About the FAQ
If you have a question about the D&D game rules, you might find them within this FAQ. Any new additions or major corrections in a
version are provided in red text for your convenience. Red text changes to black text in the next version.
This version of the D&D FAQ uses the 3.5 revision of the core rules and also contains questions covering material from a variety
of books (such as Savage Species and Epic Level Handbook). If you haven’t yet adopted the revision, don’t worry—in the rare
instance that the answer is different between 3rd edition and the 3.5 revision, we’ll bring it to your attention with a call out that says
“Revision Alert.” If you have a question that isn’t answered here, please contact custserv@wizards.com and ask away! You can also
contact the Sage by writing to him at these handy locations:

Nowhere, in any of that, does it say it will be acting as errata, nor changing the rules, nor updating the rules, etc. It says if you have questions about *THE RULES* then they will answer them, it does not say they will be changing them.

I still hold that they often *don't know* when they are changing rules, since they so often don't call them out.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

The real question is, when someone asks for a rule interpretation, how should the community in this forum go about answering?

How anyone can get answers to questions about the rules:

Step 1 - Go read the relevant rules; Core Rules books first, followed by supplements where the rule actually appears if not in the Core Rules, then errata, FAQs, SRD, and Sage Advice in any order desired. WotC Customer Service contact is optional.
Step 2 - Gather additional opinions as desired.
Step 3 - Choose one or make up your own.

It does not matter if the response you give to a question is the "official" answer. It does not matter if the official answer actually is contradictory of established rules. It doesn't matter if you simply prefer one interpretation over another. Unless you require a definitive answer for tournament/competitive play "official" answers are meaningless - "official" is what YOU decide it is for YOUR game. In fact, it's probably easier for tournament purposes to simply reiterate what the rules precedence is for that tournament since even "official" responses still get debated as "incorrect" and are sometimes even contradictory.

 

[moritheil]

It does not matter if the response you give to a question is the "official" answer. It does not matter if the official answer actually is contradictory of established rules. It doesn't matter if you simply prefer one interpretation over another. Unless you require a definitive answer for tournament/competitive play "official" answers are meaningless - "official" is what YOU decide it is for YOUR game. In fact, it's probably easier for tournament purposes to simply reiterate what the rules precedence is for that tournament since even "official" responses still get debated as "incorrect" and are sometimes even contradictory.

I think you've missed the point, which is that people who debate this in the rules forum ARE concerned with what's official by the rules as written. Telling them they should not be is kind of going beyond the scope of the debate.

 

[irdeggman]

I'm sure after our debates the Monk/INA thread you know my position Artoomis, but I'll restate it here for the record:

The FAQ cannot change the rules. It cannot generate new rules. Only the Errata can do that. If the FAQ says somethign that contradicts the books, it is not an erratum for the book, it is a mistake in thje FAQ.

Obviously, I voted 'no'.


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 (3.5) DMG does not include the specific statement that they do not count (it was included in the 3.0 DMG though).

Sage advice (and the FAQ) stated this was an error and that they (PrCl) did not count towards multiclassing penalties.

The SRD was modified in one of it's updates to include this "ruling" from the FAQ.

The leather bound 3.5 DMG included the changes made.

Never has the DMG errata been updated to catch this change/error.

This is definitely something that "changes" the rules and is not a clarification since it is not a way of reading the "existing" text but actually inserting words that conflict with the existing text.

Under which category would this apply?

The base prblem (as I see it) is that WotC is misusing terminology in that a FAQ is "supposed" to be only Frequently Asked Questions but they are more and more consistenetly using it as a quick means of changing rules without actually including them in errata.

Well actually errata is supposed to be a means of making corrections to text and such and not inserting new rules.

So I guess there is really nothing specifically in the rules "official" heirachy that defines new rules or rule changes.

Now in 3.0 Sage Advice was much better about making statements that were errata or specifica changes by stating this is offical errata or an offical rule change - over time WotC (and the Sage) has gotten "lazy" on this topic.

 

[Artoomis]

You keep saying this like it is a fact. It is your interpretation of one line, and a parenthetical line at that.

If you actually look at what WoTC says about the FAQ, you get
And if you read the FAQ and see what it says about itself you get
Nowhere, in any of that, does it say it will be acting as errata, nor changing the rules, nor updating the rules, etc. It says if you have questions about *THE RULES* then they will answer them, it does not say they will be changing them.

I still hold that they often *don't know* when they are changing rules, since they so often don't call them out.

WotC states that the FAQ will "not cover errata found in the errata documents," leaving open the door to cover errata NOT found in the errata documents, not necessarily saying they WILL do that.

Having shown that the door is open, what remains is to show that they actually have done this, which I (and others) also have shown.

The only real counter-arguments seem to be either the one where either we assume that the folks at WotC are competeley clueless and don't know what they are doing at all, or one that pretty much redefined the word "clarification" to make it fit any rule changes in the FAQ.

Either way is unsatisfactory, at least for me.

 

[babomb]

Do acid and sonic damage apply hardness or ignore it?

If the FAQ is errata, the answer is "yes".

 

[Hypersmurf]

Do acid and sonic damage apply hardness or ignore it?

If the FAQ is errata, the answer is "yes".

True, but difficult to rule from

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

In reading this I thought that this was, in essence, the same question.

No, you asked the ENWorld community if the FAQ can be used to issue errata (create new rules). Since the ENWorld community did not create the D&D errata or FAQ, we can't really answer this accurately, only the creaters can (WotC). All we have to go on is the heirarchy, and their heirarchy doesn't say anything about the FAQ trumping errata or PHB or being allowed to added to errata.

Now if you are asking us if it SHOULD be allowed to issue errata or new rules, then my answer is NO.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

This is exactly how I read it.