Can the FAQ be used to issue errata (create new rules)?
- Thread starter Artoomis
- Start date
Caliban said:What you say may be true, but the quality of the answers leads me to believe otherwise.
I cannot tell if you are merely being humorous here.
I suspect that if you read all of the answers in the FAQ, that you would probably agree with most of them. That may indicate that the Sage is knowledgable, or it may indicate that he has a lot of help.
Plus, just because Skip (for most of the answers) answered reasonably close to RAW does not mean that he did not disagree with some of RAW and decided to take matters into his own (DM) hands.
Well, time to read Order of the Stick and then go to bed.
Whether we think so-and-so is wrong or not is irrelevent. WotC says they're right. Andy Collins is a designer and official interpreter, and going by at least one interpretation of Trevor's response, customer service is in agreement that the FAQ is most certainly an official source of errata. Case closed. I don't see why this is still being argued.
Again, if you don't like it, rule 0 it, but when people ask the official rules, the FAQ trumps any of your "suspicions".
Again, if you don't like it, rule 0 it, but when people ask the official rules, the FAQ trumps any of your "suspicions".
ahh found my e-mail trail with Cust Serv on Leadership/cohorts. As mentioned int he now closed thread I'm posting it to show data paint (for me at least) as to why I place Cust Serv as very low on the reliability scale from WotC.
Anubis this is not a slam on you so I don't want you to take it that way. As I have said before I agree with your deductions on the role of the FAQ (as it is currently being used) and the summation of the Cust Serv responses. I just wanted to point out that they really are only 1 tool to use when gathering evidence to support a rules question.
Man. This just isn't my mail I did intend to say that the cohort does NOT cause them to take an extra cut out of their experience. You write in for an answer and I just go making it more confusing.
It is possible to have multiple cohorts, just not at the same time. So if you have a cohort, and then your cohort dies, you can then get another cohort. At this point you have had multiple cohorts and that is the plural that the section on page 104 is referring to. I can definitely see how it can be confusing. But the intention is for 1 cohort. Good gaming!
Travis
Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
dtd 1/13/105
-----Original Message-----
Thanks again for the reply and the time you are taking with me. When I looked over my original response I noticed it was rather brash and insulting. I didn't mean it to be that way, sorry for the wording.
I assume you meant to say ".. .does not cause them to take an extra cut out of their experience." (Stupid computers not keeping up with our hands/minds.) Since the method written states not to count them (cohorts) when determining XP awards for individual characters. The 3.5 formula has the individual award determined on an individual character basis (using their level and the CR of the opponent/trap and then dividing by the total number of characters present. It is this last number (the one in the denominator) that is not to include any cohorts present, so they never detract from the amount of XP awarded to characters they only allow a greater amount of XP to be awarded. Still seems kind of broke to me, but what the heck. I thought the method in 3.0 was better for this issue (cohorts counted as a half character when determining XP awards).
As far as only gaining 1 cohort, I can understand the logic but it still seems to be a gut-feeling call that is repeated whenever the question is asked. I guess the real question is then what is meant by the statement on pg 104 of the DMG "There are no limitations on the class, race, or gender of a character's cohorts, nor limits to the number of cohorts who can be employed by a character."? This is the same text that was in 3.0. It is a very clear, concise and complete statement and there are no other statements in the DMG that contradict this when referring to cohorts. As far as reading this out of context, I don't see how that can be done since it is 1/3 (one sentence out of three) of the paragraph it comes from and paragraphs are supposed to divide separate thoughts/concepts when writing. But there might have been something that was intended to be said that didn't make it into print, which would expound on this statement and help clarify the intent.
Again thanks for the time and effort you are putting into this.
dtd 1/13/05
-----Original Message-----
From: Wizards Customer Service [ mailto:custserv@wizards.com
Yeah, totally forgot about the weird cohort experience rules, you're right. And the method is what was intended. The party's level goes up for determining encounters, but the cohort does cause them to take an extra cut out of their experience. Again, it is written as intended. Sorry about the confusion.
Travis
Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
dtd 1/12/05
-----Original Message-----
Thanks for the reply.
I don't think you read the wording in the DMG under experience for cohorts.
3. Actually, if you look under the subheading "Attracting Cohorts" on page 106 of the 3.5 DMG, it states that Cohorts is effectively another PC under that player's control, "one who share of xp, treasure, and spotlight time is bound to take something away from the other players' characters." So the cohort does take his share of the xp and does raise the party's level.
1 - under experience points on pg 104 "Don't include a cohort as a party member when determining the XP awards for individual characters." It then goes into the formula for awarding a cohort experience, but they do not count in the awarding of PCs experience while they do raise the party's level for determining encounters.
dtd 1/12/05
-----Original Message-----
From: Wizards Customer Service [ mailto:custserv@wizards.com
1. You can only have one cohort at a time with the leadership feat. You can have a number of other followers as detailed on page 106 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide, but you only ever have one cohort.
2. You only gain the benefits from the leadership feat once, so if you take it multiple times, the effects would not stack. There is no reason to take the feat more than once.
3. Actually, if you look under the subheading "Attracting Cohorts" on page 106 of the 3.5 DMG, it states that Cohorts is effectively another PC under that player's control, "one who share of xp, treasure, and spotlight time is bound to take something away from the other players' characters." So the cohort does take his share of the xp and does raise the party's level.
I hope that clears things up. Have fun and good gaming!
Travis
Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
dtd 1/12/05
-----Original Message-----
Based upon some quite energetic discussions with some fellow gamers, I have some questions on cohorts and the Leadership feat. I haven’t seen any clarification on these topics in the past so any guidance/advice/ruling would be greatly appreciated.
1. How many cohorts can a character with the leadership feat have at one time?
The DMG pg 104 seems to imply that there is no limit, although some are reading it as a character can replace cohorts who leave or die an unlimited number of times but can only have one cohort at a time. There are no limitations on the class, race, or gender of a characters cohorts, nor limits to the number of cohorts who can be employed by a character. This seems to echo the 2nd ed rules that had henchmen precursor to cohorts and the number allowed based on the characters charisma score while followers replaced men-at-arms I think that is what they were called as listed under fighter, thief and cleric classes
2. Can this feat be taken more than once?
This is not included in the description of the feat, which is the norm. If a character is limited to only one cohort at a time can this number be increased by repetitive acquisition of the Leadership feat?
3. Is the method for determining experience for cohorts and factoring them into the experience distribution as written in the DMG really what was intended by the rules or did something get messed up during the final editing/compilation of the book?
Cohorts are counted when determining the party level for encounters. They are not counted when awarding experience, they get a different rate that doesn’t detract from the experience point awards. pg 104/105 Don’t include a cohort as a party member when determining the XP awards for individual characters. A cohort gains XP equal to cohort level/leaders level times the leader’s XP award. So what essentially happens is that by bringing along cohorts the party can survive encounters of higher levels, gaining higher experience point awards with no additional risk involved. In 3.0 the cohort did take from the XP pool available, but at 1/2 the rate a normal player character would. This really gets distorted if there is no limit to the number of cohorts a character can have see question 1 above. This seems to be a broken game mechanic and is, at least on the surface, unbalanced.
dtd 1/12/05
Anubis this is not a slam on you so I don't want you to take it that way. As I have said before I agree with your deductions on the role of the FAQ (as it is currently being used) and the summation of the Cust Serv responses. I just wanted to point out that they really are only 1 tool to use when gathering evidence to support a rules question.
Man. This just isn't my mail
I did intend to say that the cohort does NOT cause them to take an extra cut out of their experience. You write in for an answer and I just go making it more confusing.It is possible to have multiple cohorts, just not at the same time. So if you have a cohort, and then your cohort dies, you can then get another cohort. At this point you have had multiple cohorts and that is the plural that the section on page 104 is referring to. I can definitely see how it can be confusing. But the intention is for 1 cohort. Good gaming!
Travis
Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
dtd 1/13/105
-----Original Message-----
Thanks again for the reply and the time you are taking with me. When I looked over my original response I noticed it was rather brash and insulting. I didn't mean it to be that way, sorry for the wording.
I assume you meant to say ".. .does not cause them to take an extra cut out of their experience." (Stupid computers not keeping up with our hands/minds.) Since the method written states not to count them (cohorts) when determining XP awards for individual characters. The 3.5 formula has the individual award determined on an individual character basis (using their level and the CR of the opponent/trap and then dividing by the total number of characters present. It is this last number (the one in the denominator) that is not to include any cohorts present, so they never detract from the amount of XP awarded to characters they only allow a greater amount of XP to be awarded. Still seems kind of broke to me, but what the heck. I thought the method in 3.0 was better for this issue (cohorts counted as a half character when determining XP awards).
As far as only gaining 1 cohort, I can understand the logic but it still seems to be a gut-feeling call that is repeated whenever the question is asked. I guess the real question is then what is meant by the statement on pg 104 of the DMG "There are no limitations on the class, race, or gender of a character's cohorts, nor limits to the number of cohorts who can be employed by a character."? This is the same text that was in 3.0. It is a very clear, concise and complete statement and there are no other statements in the DMG that contradict this when referring to cohorts. As far as reading this out of context, I don't see how that can be done since it is 1/3 (one sentence out of three) of the paragraph it comes from and paragraphs are supposed to divide separate thoughts/concepts when writing. But there might have been something that was intended to be said that didn't make it into print, which would expound on this statement and help clarify the intent.
Again thanks for the time and effort you are putting into this.
dtd 1/13/05
-----Original Message-----
From: Wizards Customer Service [ mailto:custserv@wizards.com
Yeah, totally forgot about the weird cohort experience rules, you're right. And the method is what was intended. The party's level goes up for determining encounters, but the cohort does cause them to take an extra cut out of their experience. Again, it is written as intended. Sorry about the confusion.
Travis
Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
dtd 1/12/05
-----Original Message-----
Thanks for the reply.
I don't think you read the wording in the DMG under experience for cohorts.
3. Actually, if you look under the subheading "Attracting Cohorts" on page 106 of the 3.5 DMG, it states that Cohorts is effectively another PC under that player's control, "one who share of xp, treasure, and spotlight time is bound to take something away from the other players' characters." So the cohort does take his share of the xp and does raise the party's level.
1 - under experience points on pg 104 "Don't include a cohort as a party member when determining the XP awards for individual characters." It then goes into the formula for awarding a cohort experience, but they do not count in the awarding of PCs experience while they do raise the party's level for determining encounters.
dtd 1/12/05
-----Original Message-----
From: Wizards Customer Service [ mailto:custserv@wizards.com
1. You can only have one cohort at a time with the leadership feat. You can have a number of other followers as detailed on page 106 of the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide, but you only ever have one cohort.
2. You only gain the benefits from the leadership feat once, so if you take it multiple times, the effects would not stack. There is no reason to take the feat more than once.
3. Actually, if you look under the subheading "Attracting Cohorts" on page 106 of the 3.5 DMG, it states that Cohorts is effectively another PC under that player's control, "one who share of xp, treasure, and spotlight time is bound to take something away from the other players' characters." So the cohort does take his share of the xp and does raise the party's level.
I hope that clears things up. Have fun and good gaming!
Travis
Customer Service Department
Wizards of the Coast
dtd 1/12/05
-----Original Message-----
Based upon some quite energetic discussions with some fellow gamers, I have some questions on cohorts and the Leadership feat. I haven’t seen any clarification on these topics in the past so any guidance/advice/ruling would be greatly appreciated.
1. How many cohorts can a character with the leadership feat have at one time?
The DMG pg 104 seems to imply that there is no limit, although some are reading it as a character can replace cohorts who leave or die an unlimited number of times but can only have one cohort at a time. There are no limitations on the class, race, or gender of a characters cohorts, nor limits to the number of cohorts who can be employed by a character. This seems to echo the 2nd ed rules that had henchmen precursor to cohorts and the number allowed based on the characters charisma score while followers replaced men-at-arms I think that is what they were called as listed under fighter, thief and cleric classes
2. Can this feat be taken more than once?
This is not included in the description of the feat, which is the norm. If a character is limited to only one cohort at a time can this number be increased by repetitive acquisition of the Leadership feat?
3. Is the method for determining experience for cohorts and factoring them into the experience distribution as written in the DMG really what was intended by the rules or did something get messed up during the final editing/compilation of the book?
Cohorts are counted when determining the party level for encounters. They are not counted when awarding experience, they get a different rate that doesn’t detract from the experience point awards. pg 104/105 Don’t include a cohort as a party member when determining the XP awards for individual characters. A cohort gains XP equal to cohort level/leaders level times the leader’s XP award. So what essentially happens is that by bringing along cohorts the party can survive encounters of higher levels, gaining higher experience point awards with no additional risk involved. In 3.0 the cohort did take from the XP pool available, but at 1/2 the rate a normal player character would. This really gets distorted if there is no limit to the number of cohorts a character can have see question 1 above. This seems to be a broken game mechanic and is, at least on the surface, unbalanced.
dtd 1/12/05
That guy who answered your e-mail sounded very . . . confused. I just had a thought. It may be possible that different members of the customer service are like employees anywhere; more experience means more accurate. The guy may have been somewhat new, or maybe just not as smart as some others. If only we could get a database of responses from various reps, we might be able to figure out which ones are accurate and which ones are, well, a bit slow.
Chris and Nephreum seems like that were certain of what they were saying, as opposed to Travis in your e-mailings who seems to meander all over the place trying to find the right answer. Trevor seemed somewhere in between, giving vague but somewhat knowledgable answers.
Again, if we could make a database, we could probably figure this out better. Still, Chris and Nephreum answered the questions I asked with a lot more . . . confidence . . . than Trevor and a helluva lot more than Travis in your e-mailings. Of course no one is perfect. I do agree that multiple sources are needed to point to the truth as well.
Thing is, in this case, we have all the development by Andy Collins and confirmation by two (three if you interpret Trevor's response as I and some others did) customer service representatives, as well as the fact that it is offered ver batum from the official web site. I would think that just about clinches it, and is definitely good enough for people who don't try to pick apart things to the point of confusion.
Chris and Nephreum seems like that were certain of what they were saying, as opposed to Travis in your e-mailings who seems to meander all over the place trying to find the right answer. Trevor seemed somewhere in between, giving vague but somewhat knowledgable answers.
Again, if we could make a database, we could probably figure this out better. Still, Chris and Nephreum answered the questions I asked with a lot more . . . confidence . . . than Trevor and a helluva lot more than Travis in your e-mailings. Of course no one is perfect. I do agree that multiple sources are needed to point to the truth as well.
Thing is, in this case, we have all the development by Andy Collins and confirmation by two (three if you interpret Trevor's response as I and some others did) customer service representatives, as well as the fact that it is offered ver batum from the official web site. I would think that just about clinches it, and is definitely good enough for people who don't try to pick apart things to the point of confusion.
If you want to take everything they say at face value, and despite the strong evidence of the lack of reliability in service desk answers, then fill your boots. But don't expect everyone else to accept the same standard of 'proof' that you (and others) are obviously willing to accept. People have different standards. Accept it.Anubis said:
Primitive Screwhead
First Post
My issue with FAQ = Errata is simply this. There is a lack of notation in the FAQ that specifies 'this is a change of the rule' or 'this is a suggestion from the Sage'.
Hence, as the sheath w/ move line.. is that intended as a suggested HR as including this option does not imbalance the game and can make sense in game. Or is it intended as a correction to the rule.
If you come to my table and attempt to use this rule in play, I will negate it as I beleive it to be a suggested HR that I have no desire to adopt. {and honestly only know about courtesy of these threads}
I would prefer if WOTC continued updating the Errata, using the FAQ as a source for some of that material, or started tagging changes in the FAQ as they apparently have done with the SW FAQ.
Anubis.. I still think you are arguing something completely different that what those who disagree with you. Is the FAQ being used as Errata? Yup. That has been proven. Should it be? Not in its current less than reliable format.
Until it becomes more reliable and less vague, it will remain {for me} as 'official' as posts here in the HR forum. It is obvious from your oft quote of "WotC says they're right" that you are willing to take the FAQ as reliable in its current state.
[sidetrack].. in the now closed thread you posted "it is quite safe to assume that "source" and "listing" are the same thing."
Source = derived from, such as greek mythology was one of the sources of the SW plotlines.
Listing = enumeration of, such as the credits at the end of SW letting you know who the actors were.
How can these be the same?[/sidetrack]
I can understand how you have arrived at your conclusions with the meanings you have applied to 'source' and 'official'. I have yet to see any hint that you can understand how I arrive at my conclusions with different meanings. This isn't a Clinton 'depends on what is is' deal, this is a debate concerning a set of rules defined in very specific language. Precise use of meanings is required in order to properly convey the truth... something Cust Serv and the FAQ could learn from.
Hence, as the sheath w/ move line.. is that intended as a suggested HR as including this option does not imbalance the game and can make sense in game. Or is it intended as a correction to the rule.
If you come to my table and attempt to use this rule in play, I will negate it as I beleive it to be a suggested HR that I have no desire to adopt. {and honestly only know about courtesy of these threads}
I would prefer if WOTC continued updating the Errata, using the FAQ as a source for some of that material, or started tagging changes in the FAQ as they apparently have done with the SW FAQ.
Anubis.. I still think you are arguing something completely different that what those who disagree with you. Is the FAQ being used as Errata? Yup. That has been proven. Should it be? Not in its current less than reliable format.
Until it becomes more reliable and less vague, it will remain {for me} as 'official' as posts here in the HR forum. It is obvious from your oft quote of "WotC says they're right" that you are willing to take the FAQ as reliable in its current state.
[sidetrack].. in the now closed thread you posted "it is quite safe to assume that "source" and "listing" are the same thing."
Source = derived from, such as greek mythology was one of the sources of the SW plotlines.
Listing = enumeration of, such as the credits at the end of SW letting you know who the actors were.
How can these be the same?[/sidetrack]
I can understand how you have arrived at your conclusions with the meanings you have applied to 'source' and 'official'. I have yet to see any hint that you can understand how I arrive at my conclusions with different meanings. This isn't a Clinton 'depends on what is is' deal, this is a debate concerning a set of rules defined in very specific language. Precise use of meanings is required in order to properly convey the truth... something Cust Serv and the FAQ could learn from.
Similar Threads
