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

[Artoomis]

From the monk INA thread:

...Response (Trevor K.) 11/01/2005 09:34 AM
Hey there Brandon. Zephreum, Chris and I sat down with the teams in R&D and talked with them about this, just so we would all be on the same page and to alleviate your confusion and the confusion of the people who are having a hard time understanding the difference between the FAQ and errata. The conclusion we came to was the one that I originally gave you: Errata is for rules changes and the FAQ is for rules clarification. This comes straight from the guys who make the FAQ and errata.

Now, much of this confusion is stemming from the fact that the Monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural attacks for qualifying for feats such as Improved Natural Attack, and some people see this as a rules change. It is not. It is a clarification on the types of things that fall into the "effects" category concerning the monk's unarmed strikes.

Regardless, the FAQ is an official source of rules and should be followed. If the FAQ is every incorrect or misleading, then we update it with a fix as quickly as possible. Everything in the FAQ is official rules information, so if you see something that you perceive as errata in the FAQ, it is still official and should still be applied to the rules. People shouldn't just disregard the new monk/natural attack information just because they think of it as errata.

There are no plans to merge the errata with the FAQ, and again, these types of things like the Monk issue mentioned above are indeed not rules changes, just clarifications. Also, if you have any other issues that appear like errata popping up in the FAQ that you would like to discuss, please feel free to respond with those.

I have checked in at EN World and the debate is raging. I'm not sure why people believe they can disregard information in the FAQ and pretend it's not there, but I'm coming from a place where I have to read and assimilate all the information in order to do my job correctly and give people the right answers, so that they can give their players and fellow DMs the right answers. If we didn't want players or DMs to read and assimilate the information provided in the FAQ,we wouldn't provide one. But don't feel like you're annoying us! This is our job, we're here to answer questions, and I would love to help you guys clear this up. If you have any more questions, feel free to respond with them.

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.

Trevor K.

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) 11/01/2005 12:50 AM
I'm a bit confused by your answer. When I asked if the FAQ provides errata, Zephreum told me, and I quote, "Yes the D&D FAQ is also a source for Errata."

This seems to conflict with your statement, kinda.

Now, you admit it's "intended" that changes appear in the errata and not the FAQ, but given that rules changes have indeed been implemented in the FAQ (and not placed in the errata), what does this mean? Is it that, despite intentions, errata is popping up in the FAQ even though it shouldn't? Or are rules changes in the FAQ not actually official until those changes appear in the errata? (Chris said "everything" in the FAQ is official, so I would think that includes rules changes as well.)

I dunno if you ever visit the web site EN World, but that's where the debate is going on. Several people there are fighting rather heatedly about how "nothing change-wise is official until it's in the errata", and claim the rule about primary sources put the actual books above the word of Andy Collins or customer service (I think that stance is pretty stupid myself); others think that the FAQ is outright wrong about monks being qualified. I, for one, believe that everything in the FAQ is absolute until someone says otherwise, but yes, this is a very confused issue.

Basically, unless the errata is merged with the FAQ, no one will take it seriously. Aggravating for serious rules discussion.

This all must be very annoying, lol. I find it annoying myself, but I figure instead of complaining about it as others have, that's why I continue discussing this with the customer service in hopes of putting very clear language in as to whether the FAQ is whjolly official including any changes or not. Sorry to be such a bother. I'm just hoping to finally end the debate over at EN World (which has currently grossed well over 1000 posts over five different topics).
...

I think that about wraps it up. The purpose of the FAQ and errata are different, but anything published in the FAQ is offical rules - even errors, until they are corrected.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The purpose of the FAQ and errata are different, but anything published in the FAQ is offical rules - even errors, until they are corrected.

I'll let that one just sink in for a little bit before I start laughing.

"We're right, even when we're wrong!"

Riiiiiight.

 

[Borlon]

That quote from Trevor is so messed up. It makes me wonder why we have a rules forum at all. There is no point in studying the rules carefully if we are going to be undermined by nonsense like this.

 

[Anubis]

Well, their product, their way. Besides, it's not like there are glaring errors in the FAQ. There are some typos, yes, but when pointed out they get corrected (as with the hardness issue when I e-mailed Andy Collins); as for blatant mistakes, few and far between and not game breaking when they're present (the only one I'm aware of that may possibly be one is the sheath for free during a move).

If anyone can actually point out blatant and obvious errors (as opposed to you simply reading a certain passage differently than they do, which is an invalid argument to begin with), then we can start talking. Until you do, you have nothing. Even if you do, if you haven't reported it, you still have nothing.

 

[Caliban]

I think that about wraps it up. The purpose of the FAQ and errata are different, but anything published in the FAQ is offical rules - even errors, until they are corrected.

You really should know better than to post nonsense like that Artoomis.

WOTC Cust Serv has no credibility and no authority when it comes to the rules.

 

[Artoomis]

You really should know better than to post nonsense like that Artoomis.

WOTC Cust Serv has no credibility and no authority when it comes to the rules.

NOte that this was NOT just opne WotC Cutomer Service person in the old model of just one man's opinion, this was them talking together with one voice along with R&D - and note that "Zephreum, Chris and I sat down with the teams in R&D and talked with them about this, just so we would all be on the same page and to alleviate your confusion." It' s simply not going to get any clear or better than that until (unless) some official statement is actually put out. The answer provided appears to be factual, reasonable and expressing WotC's position onthe matter. What more do you want?

 

[Artoomis]

That quote from Trevor is so messed up. It makes me wonder why we have a rules forum at all. There is no point in studying the rules carefully if we are going to be undermined by nonsense like this.

"Nonsense like this?" This looks pretty reasonable to me. The FAQ is official and considered part of the rules. If you see anything amiss, report it to WotC to have it looked at and possibly changed. What could be more reasonable??

 

[Artoomis]

I'll let that one just sink in for a little bit before I start laughing.

"We're right, even when we're wrong!"

Riiiiiight.

Well, sort of. The FAQ is officially part of the rules. If anything seems amiss, report it and if they fix it then it was an error - if not, then, apparently, it was intended and not an error.

No different than the published rules in the first place, which may contain errors as well.

Really, if you don't like it, don't use it in your games, but it most certainly is the official rules.

 

[Anubis]

What the flip are you smoking, Caliban? Customer service has no authority? What the Hell do you think they're there for? They're there to provide official answers as representatives of the company!

Who the Hell else do you think has the authority? The WotC CEO or some other person who doesn't take questions from the public? This is what customer service is for. People may not like that the FAQ can have typos, but I dare you to point out a single publication that doesn't get them. If you can't debate intelligently, get out of the way.

Good grief, I have never before seen such insanity as I am seeing from you, Caliban. Talk about no credibility, you are the one with no credibility.

 

[Caliban]

What the flip are you smoking, Caliban?

Why Anubis, would this be another personal attack?

Customer service has no authority? What the Hell do you think they're there for?

To help customers with problems with the products. Shoddy book binding, misprinted books, problems with the website, problems with a download you purchased, etc.

Any number of things that are related to helping their customer received their products.

But in the case of D&D, I've seen nothing from an official source that indicates they are an official source for interpretations on the rules of the game. That's the Sage and the R&D department, and eventually the FAQ and Errata.

Edit: hehe, You know, I decided to go see if I find an answer to this question, since you don't seem inclined to. I found an answer in about 2 minutes. Instead of attacking me, you could have tried answering the question. That would have been an intelligent debating tactic.

Apparently they are supposed to answer rules questions. Too bad they have been wrong so often in the past, as their credibility has been shot, at least on these boards. I still don't accept them as "official" as far as rules interpretations go, but trying to answer questions is indeed part of their job.

Maybe they are training their people better now, but I think that I have to see some non-contradictory answers before I'll believe that.

They're there to provide official answers as representatives of the company!

No, that would be the WOTC R&D team or Andy Collins in his position as the Sage. And even then, it's not totally official until it makes it into the FAQ or the errata. You know, since that is what those are for.

Who the Hell else do you think has the authority? The WotC CEO or some other person who doesn't take questions from the public?

The Sage. Currently, that is Andy Collins. He has been granted the authority to provide the "100% official answers". And even then, he can make mistakes. He's human after all. But it's a long site better than a random Customer Service rep.

This is what customer service is for. People may not like that the FAQ can have typos, but I dare you to point out a single publication that doesn't get them.

I'm not sure what this has to do with anything I've said.

If you can't debate intelligently, get out of the way.

If I was in the mood to be rude, I could point out several instances you have failed to do this yourself. But I'm not.

Good grief, I have never before seen such insanity as I am seeing from you, Caliban. Talk about no credibility, you are the one with no credibility.

And that's even more unprovoked personal attacks on your part. That's against the forum rules you know. Or do you think those rules don't apply to you?