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

[Anubis]

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

 

[Coredump]

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.

(snip)

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.

I have two responses to this.
First. It *was* a clarification. The rules in the PHB talk (and hence the XP penalty) talk *only* about 'classes', not 'prestige classes'. All of the examples of multi-classing, and what it means, is dealing with base classes.
In the DMG, when Prestige classes are introduced, they are described as a 'new' way of multiclassing. The *specifically* say they follow the rules on page 58, but make NO mention of the rules on page 60. Does this leave things a bit ambiguous, yes.

Therefore, it needs a clarification that the rules are written, just like they are supposed to be.

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.

(snip)

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

Second item
You are right. No one is saying that Sage Advice/FAQ never gets things right. But that question was answerred by CustServ way before Sage got to it. Should everything CustServ states be treated as RAW also?

No. Because they sometimes guess wrong. Well, so does Sage. He just plain gets it wrong too often to be assumed everything he says it right. Plus, he hardly ever *says* he is changing something, he (apparently) makes a ruling based on what he happens to remember at the time. If he would at least call out "This is a change in the rules" It would give him more credibility.

Question: Do you think he meant to 'errata' that sheathing while moving is legal, or do you think he just goofed? Or do you think he just doesn't know?

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

There is no real error to change. It is confusing, and perhaps poorly written, but it can be read either way. Thus it is a *clarification*, not an errata.

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.

I say the base problem is that Sage (*not* WoTC) is using his columns to post house rules that change the written rules. It has been shown that these 'rulings' sometimes turn into official changes, and somtimes they do not. But the Sage just keeps saying them anyway. (Invisible flanking) Until he can be consistent, and at least label them as changed, or suggestions, that he can not be taken as 'official', since he in unreliable.

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

Yes, he was 'very clear' about the invisibility not providing flanking. Of course, when 3.5 came out it still did not follow his 'ruling', but he said it again.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I look forward to your response on that one.

I guess, with a sufficiently broad interpretation of the word "clarification," the FAQ has never posted errata - but, wow, that's a real stretch, isn't it?

And what about "These game rule FAQs do not cover errata found in the errata documents." Does that not strongly imply that rules changes OTHER than published errata will be in the FAQ? They will only be excluded from the FAQ if actually published in the errata documents, right?

No, it implies that they do not intend to repeat clarifications and changes that appear in errata, leading the reader to refer to the published errata to see if the answer to his question lies there instead of the FAQ. It's a warning that there is no redundancy between the two documents. If something has already been corrected in the errata, they will not publish FAQ questions about issues that deal with that rule.

That rule changes found in published errata are excluded from FAQ documents does not imply that FAQ documents contain any unpublished rule changes, much in the way that it is not the case that a library which does not contain any published books by Stephen King therefore contains unpublished books by Stephen King.

The quoted sentence above is vague and I could see how it would be misleading. Despite that, even if you were to read the quoted sentence as implying that there are multiple species of errata, some of which are "published errata" and are found in the errata documents, and some of which are not published errata, and may be found elsewhere, it still does not imply that the FAQ is the location of the other species of errata.

Edit:
Also, I'd just like to point out (not in relation to the above quote), because it drives me nuts to see it otherwise, that the singular is erratum and the plural is errata. Of course, the plural of forum is fora...

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

The INA thread is like Happy Days in that respect.

It's jumped the shark?

 

[Deset Gled]

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.

Or, the counter arguement I always post, where WotC specifically addresses the issue of contradicting rule sources.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees. Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

In 3.0, there was a lot of debate as to what the rules really were when the FAQ contradicted the books, and such. There were many heated debates on these boards about the subject as well. When 3.5 came out, WotC decided to stop those arguements, and created a solid ruling on how to handle the situation of conflicting rules. This way, players don't have to read the core books, 3 splat books, the FAQ, and Sage rulings to figure out how things are supposed to work (as was the case with 3.0 Polymorph).

What would it take from WotC to get you to believe that alternative rule sources such as the FAQ cannot overrule the books? Do you want a disclaimer on everything WotC publishes stating it?

 

[IcyCool]

Thanks for explaining.

What about the cases above where WotC clearly stated the rules were in error and posted that information in the FAQ and did not update errata? Didn't they use the FAQ as a source for official errata?

Maybe they should not do that, but hasn't that ship already sailed?

I voted No. My reasons are generally the same as Rigamortus2, although I the FAQ holds less water with me.

As to your question quoted above, as I mentioned in the other thread, WotC have listed a hierarchy of what constitutes the rules. The FAQ isn't in it. So if a rules change is in the FAQ and nowhere else, it isn't a rules change. If that same change is later included in either the errata or new printing of the core books, that is when it becomes an actual rules change.

I don't know if the FAQ has any rules changes listed as such that aren't also currently in the errata or a revised book printing, but if they aren't, then it isn't an actual rules change. Yet.

 

[frankthedm]

I voted NO.

I don't need any evidence thing. Because ANY FAQ should not provide rule erratas for ANY GAMES.

FAQ should be remain as FAQ. Any rule changes should be clearly written in Errata. This separation is needed to make a game easy to reference and understand.

And current FAQ is so inaccurate to have such credibility.

BING!

 

[Artoomis]

...I don't know if the FAQ has any rules changes listed as such that aren't also currently in the errata or a revised book printing, but if they aren't, then it isn't an actual rules change. Yet.

There is at least one example of a rules change (or errata, if you like) in the FAQ - the fact that prestige classes do not have an XP penatly was left out of 3.5 and put back in through the FAQ - and now published in the leather-bound DMG but NOT ever posted in errata.

Gee - that sounds and awful lot like published errata. Note that WotC does allow themselves permission to publish errata in the FAQ by only excluding errata from the FAQ if it is already publisehd in errata documents - leaving open the door for them to publish errata right in the FAQ wihout disturbing the rules hiearchy because it is still errata - even though not published in the errata documents.

This is sloppy and should not be done this way, of course.

 

[Artoomis]

...What would it take from WotC to get you to believe that alternative rule sources such as the FAQ cannot overrule the books? Do you want a disclaimer on everything WotC publishes stating it?

That's any EASY question. It would take WotC to STOP posting changes to the rules in the FAQ that they consider authoritative and use as errata. I agree that they are not SUPPOSED to use the FAQ this way, but THEY ARE. The rule on prestige classes and XP penalties is the most obvious example.

The rule change was posted ONLY in the FAQ and then published into the latest printing of the DMG. How is that not WotC treating the FAQ (at least partially) as a source of errata?

I hear a lot of folks talking about the way things SHOULD be but few addressing the way thing ARE.

 

[IcyCool]

There is at least one example of a rules change (or errata, if you like) in the FAQ - the fact that prestige classes do not have an XP penatly was left out of 3.5 and put back in through the FAQ - and now published in the leather-bound DMG but NOT ever posted in errata.

And it doesn't have to be, it's in a revised printing of one of the books. THAT'S what makes it a rules change.