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

[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.

Yes, they set their own definition, and here it is:

When you find a disagreement between two D&D rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct.

Now, you want to disregard what WoTC has said.

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?

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.

Let me expand upon this. The FAQ is a list of questions. They include questions over a lot of topics. Do they include questions about *all* topics? No, they do *not* include questions that deal with items that have been covered in the errata. No where does it state, or imply, that rule changes are part of the domain of the FAQ. All it says is that it will not talk about stuff that has been covered in the errata. IOW, you will not see a FAQ question about "Hey, why are there two different CR's for an Ogre?" Because the 'FAQ's do not cover errata found in the errata documents.'
Besides, you are hinging everything on a parenthetical statement. If a FAQ were supposed to be changing rules, wouldn't that be a major part of its description??

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.

First: I disagree that as errata. No rules were changed. There was nothing RAW that said that prestige classes counted for multi-classing penalties. Now, it *is* a rule change to allow sheathing a sword to become a free action while moving.

Second: So what? Lets say that somewhere the FAQ does make a statement, and the rules do change to reflect that. So what? That does not make the FAQ a *reliable* place for errata or rule changes. Since, it has also been shown, that the FAQ has made 'changes' that have *not* become part of the rules. A stopped clock is right twice a day, that does *not* make it reliable for seeing what time it is.

Further: Now that I have spent more time looking at the FAQ, it is even worse. The Sage *does* call out when he is quoting or interpreting the rules. The problem is that he isn't even consistent in that. It is a hodge-podge of sometime clear sometimes messed-up rulings that are sometimes labled and sometimes not. I feel pretty supported that the don't even know all the times that they are trying to 'change' the rules.

 

[Artoomis]

Yes, they set their own definition, and here it is:Now, you want to disregard what WoTC has said...

... No where does it state, or imply, that rule changes are part of the domain of the FAQ. All it says is that it will not talk about stuff that has been covered in the errata.

The parenthetical statement merely opened the door, it did not actually state that the FAQ would issue any errata and/or rule changes. With the door open, they've charged right in - intentionally or not.

..If a FAQ were supposed to be changing rules, wouldn't that be a major part of its description??

One would think so - but not if that were not the original idea. I submit that they've kind of "backed in" to using the FAQ for changing rules and did not really intend to do that.

...There was nothing RAW that said that prestige classes counted for multi-classing penalties...

Incorrect. Although this appears to be merely an omission, prestige clases are non-preferred classes for all races (except humans, of course) and, as such, by the core rules prior to any changes, would impose an XP penalty. This rule was changed back to the 3.0 rule by the FAQ, and then eventually published into the leather-bound DMG. Clearly this was using the FAQ to publish a rule change.

Second: So what? Lets say that somewhere the FAQ does make a statement, and the rules do change to reflect that. So what? That does not make the FAQ a *reliable* place for errata or rule changes...

Correct - it is not a RELIABLE place for errata - that does not change the fact that they are using it for one. It is difficult to know when they've changed a rule and when it might be just an off-hand comment that was not intended as a rule change (aka: an error).

 

[diaglo]

another No vote here.

 

[the Jester]

The FAQ is not errata. It serves a different purpose (and is often very inaccurate and inconsistent).

 

[Artoomis]

This is really interesting. I would never have guessed that my position would be the minority view

Fascinating.

 

[DanMcS]

This is really interesting. I would never have guessed that my position would be the minority view

Fascinating.

Why do you care? What's the difference to your game if a rule is an official rule, a kinda-official rule, or something the DM made up and wrote down on the back of a postcard?

This is like that guy that came on the board a while ago and announced that he read that everything in Dragon was, in fact, official D&D material. Who cares? Was he not using Dragon before because it "wasn't official"? What a stupid perspective on life.

 

[RigaMortus2]

What a stupid perspective on life.

Because D&D = Life... I guess for some people, that is true. They are often called virgins

 

[Cheiromancer]

Hmmm. Rules about what counts as rules- that'd be metarules, right? We need a new tag for threads like this one and the INA thread.

 

[Deset Gled]

Why do you care? What's the difference to your game if a rule is an official rule, a kinda-official rule, or something the DM made up and wrote down on the back of a postcard?

It can make a difference if you're, say, setting up a game day for your local comic book store, and want to state what rules you're following in a sussinct manner (i.e. not spelling out how you're going to rule on every inconsistency brought up by the FAQ), or going to an official tournament, or a convention.

Or you're just posting on a message board, and want to know if a rule is correct or not.

This is really interesting. I would never have guessed that my position would be the minority view

Fascinating.

I think if you did the same poll before the 3.5 PHB errata was released, you wouldn't be.

 

[Artoomis]

Why do you care? What's the difference to your game if a rule is an official rule, a kinda-official rule, or something the DM made up and wrote down on the back of a postcard?

This is like that guy that came on the board a while ago and announced that he read that everything in Dragon was, in fact, official D&D material. Who cares? Was he not using Dragon before because it "wasn't official"? What a stupid perspective on life.

Oh, please. This is more of an intellectual/philosophical discussion than a practical one.

However, that said, it is kind of important to know what the rules really are if you play in more than one game (I don't, actually). It's good to have some consistency from one game to the next.