Can the FAQ be used to issue errata (create new rules)?
- Thread starter Artoomis
- Start date
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Artoomis said:
Really?
I'm shocked that you would have thought it to be otherwise.
(I'm not Artoomis, but I can give some general reasons for why someone might want clear official rules.)
Maybe he's one of those poor, insecure DMs who think they're paying WotC for RPG rules because WotC's professional game designers, as a rule, are better at making rules than they are.
Maybe he wants to discuss rule-dependant subjects (like game balance and character generation) in a meaningful way with someone other than his own gaming group.
Maybe it's not "his" game, because he's involved in some sort of tournament play.
Maybe it's not "his" game because he considers the players as his equals with a right to participate in decisions on how the game is played, and he and wants official rulings to avoid disagreements. (The "our game" arrangement. Maybe he's even a ... DnD player.)
Maybe it's not "his" game because there's more than one DM (a common arrangement) and he wants to avoid endless debates over the rules with other DMs.
Maybe he doesn't want to have to spend hours explaining house rules and house "interpretations" to new players, and/or to write a small house rules bible for new and current players both.DanMcS said:
Maybe he's one of those poor, insecure DMs who think they're paying WotC for RPG rules because WotC's professional game designers, as a rule, are better at making rules than they are.
Maybe he wants to discuss rule-dependant subjects (like game balance and character generation) in a meaningful way with someone other than his own gaming group.
Maybe it's not "his" game, because he's involved in some sort of tournament play.
Maybe it's not "his" game because he considers the players as his equals with a right to participate in decisions on how the game is played, and he and wants official rulings to avoid disagreements. (The "our game" arrangement. Maybe he's even a ... DnD player.)
Maybe it's not "his" game because there's more than one DM (a common arrangement) and he wants to avoid endless debates over the rules with other DMs.
Well, I e-mailed WotC to clarify the exact answers, and I got them. I asked not only about the contradiction in the most recent FAQ (I also asked Andy Collins about this), but also about the FAQ itself.
Keep in mind this is in reverse order, as I copied it directly from the source.
Response (Chris L.) 10/24/2005 03:11 PM
The reference, under the kyton on page 53, is incorrect.
Yes, everything in the FAQ is meant to be official.
I hope this information is useful.
Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Chris L.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/24/2005 03:07 PM
Well, on page 39, the entry states that hardness applies to acid, sonic, and force effects; On page 53, the entry states that acid, sonic, and force effects ignore hardness. Based on your previous answer, can I take that to mean the entry on page 53 is in error from a previous ruling and that hardness does indeed apply to acid, sonic, and force effects?
Oh, and a clarification of my first question. Does your response mean that actual rules changes in the FAQ are official as well and that there are instances of errata in it?
Response (Chris L.) 10/24/2005 02:29 PM
Thank you for contacting us.
1. Absolutely, the FAQ is considered to be a log of official rules clarifications. It is considered to be official.
2. The confusion may be with regards to the differences between Hardness and Damage Reduction? All damage is reduced by hardness, while some aren't reduced by damage reduction. Let me know if this is the question. If it isn't, could you be more specific about which entry you're referring to on page 53. Thank you for your patience.
I hope this information is useful.
Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Chris L.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/23/2005 05:16 PM
I have two questions.
1. Does the D&D Rules FAQ carry as much weight as the errata? Several rules changes have been implemented through the FAQ, and the errata is no longer being updated, leading me to believe the FAQ is for clarifications and changes. As such, is all the material in the FAQ official, just as if errata had been issued?
2. Regarding the FAQ, there is a contradiction. Previously, the FAQ confirmed that sonic, acid, and force attacks ignored hardness. In the newest FAQ, however, page 39 reverses that ruling (which now states that hardness applies to sonic, acid, and force attacks) while page 53 still upholds the previous ruling that such attacks all ignored hardness. Which is correct?
Thank you for your time.
In other words, the entry about acid, sonic, and force ignoring hardness is an old error, and everything in the FAQ is official.
That also means clarifications, errata, and rule changes in the FAQ are all official. So yeah, there you have it, straight from WotC. Now can we please end this inane discussion? Monks can take Improved Natural Attack (if you don't like it, house rule it), hardness does indeed apply to acid, sonic, and force, and everything in the FAQ is official (changes included).
Keep in mind this is in reverse order, as I copied it directly from the source.
Response (Chris L.) 10/24/2005 03:11 PM
The reference, under the kyton on page 53, is incorrect.
Yes, everything in the FAQ is meant to be official.
I hope this information is useful.
Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Chris L.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/24/2005 03:07 PM
Well, on page 39, the entry states that hardness applies to acid, sonic, and force effects; On page 53, the entry states that acid, sonic, and force effects ignore hardness. Based on your previous answer, can I take that to mean the entry on page 53 is in error from a previous ruling and that hardness does indeed apply to acid, sonic, and force effects?
Oh, and a clarification of my first question. Does your response mean that actual rules changes in the FAQ are official as well and that there are instances of errata in it?
Response (Chris L.) 10/24/2005 02:29 PM
Thank you for contacting us.
1. Absolutely, the FAQ is considered to be a log of official rules clarifications. It is considered to be official.
2. The confusion may be with regards to the differences between Hardness and Damage Reduction? All damage is reduced by hardness, while some aren't reduced by damage reduction. Let me know if this is the question. If it isn't, could you be more specific about which entry you're referring to on page 53. Thank you for your patience.
I hope this information is useful.
Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Chris L.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/23/2005 05:16 PM
I have two questions.
1. Does the D&D Rules FAQ carry as much weight as the errata? Several rules changes have been implemented through the FAQ, and the errata is no longer being updated, leading me to believe the FAQ is for clarifications and changes. As such, is all the material in the FAQ official, just as if errata had been issued?
2. Regarding the FAQ, there is a contradiction. Previously, the FAQ confirmed that sonic, acid, and force attacks ignored hardness. In the newest FAQ, however, page 39 reverses that ruling (which now states that hardness applies to sonic, acid, and force attacks) while page 53 still upholds the previous ruling that such attacks all ignored hardness. Which is correct?
Thank you for your time.
In other words, the entry about acid, sonic, and force ignoring hardness is an old error, and everything in the FAQ is official.
That also means clarifications, errata, and rule changes in the FAQ are all official. So yeah, there you have it, straight from WotC. Now can we please end this inane discussion? Monks can take Improved Natural Attack (if you don't like it, house rule it), hardness does indeed apply to acid, sonic, and force, and everything in the FAQ is official (changes included).
I'm sorry Anubis, but quoting a response from the WotC service desk simply undermines your entire position. 
They have a PROVEN track record of contradictory, inconsistent, or just plain wrong answers. I'm not saying that they don't get it right at all, but many experienced board members here stopped refering rules questions to them a long time ago because of the lack of reliability of the responses. Even the reply from the service desk stated that the FAQ is considered to be a log of official rules clarifications. And that's what it does, clarifies rules - not changes or rewrites them.
They have a PROVEN track record of contradictory, inconsistent, or just plain wrong answers. I'm not saying that they don't get it right at all, but many experienced board members here stopped refering rules questions to them a long time ago because of the lack of reliability of the responses. Even the reply from the service desk stated that the FAQ is considered to be a log of official rules clarifications. And that's what it does, clarifies rules - not changes or rewrites them.Well, to your defense (even though I voted no), it is a minority view on this thread. There may be a self-selection bias.Artoomis said:
You didn't read the second question I asked. See, I knew people would interpret it wrong, so I then specifically asked about if rules changes and errata was found within, and the answer was yes, everything (everything is a pretty specific and direct word) is meant to be official.
Undermines my position? I have customer service, copyright holders, and designers backing up my position. What do you have?
Face it, they own it, their word is law. Nothing complex about it.
Undermines my position? I have customer service, copyright holders, and designers backing up my position. What do you have?
Face it, they own it, their word is law. Nothing complex about it.
Artoomis
First Post
In Anubis' defense, WotC is going way out of their way to get Customer Service to give good, consistent answers. I know someone recently hired on as a Customer Service rep, and they really do go out of there way to make sure they give consistent answers.
Have they messed this up in the past - absolutely. Will they mess it up in the future - undoubtedly, because no one is perfect, but you can expect they'll be doing a MUCH better job than they have in the past.
Have they messed this up in the past - absolutely. Will they mess it up in the future - undoubtedly, because no one is perfect, but you can expect they'll be doing a MUCH better job than they have in the past.
Unfortunately, while your questions to them were good, their responses are unreliable. It carries no weight in many peoples' eyes.
The FAQ has been wrong before. The Sage has been wrong before. The service desk has definately been wrong on many, many, occasions. The RAW is unclear. And no errata has been issued (and no, the FAW is not errata). You can posture all you like, and while I feel the 'Yes' side in the monk/INA argument is probably right, I don't believe it is supported by the RAW.
The FAQ has been wrong before. The Sage has been wrong before. The service desk has definately been wrong on many, many, occasions. The RAW is unclear. And no errata has been issued (and no, the FAW is not errata). You can posture all you like, and while I feel the 'Yes' side in the monk/INA argument is probably right, I don't believe it is supported by the RAW.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
