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

[Caliban]

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?

*shrug* He said that the FAQ is not Errata even when it makes changes to the rules, but you should still follow those changes.


So the answer from just one guy contradicts itself, and he even talked to the R&D team first.

I still haven't seen any evidence that the contradictory answers we continually recieve from WOTC customer service are credible.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I'd rather they picked one way or the other to issue corrections, with a preference for errata for the official changes- but if they want to use FAQ to do so, that's their perogative. Hopefully, the'll start to issue such FAQ with some kind of official marker distinguishing between WizCustServ opinions and Official WOTC rules changes or clarifications.

Patryn
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.

Laugh all you want, P, but for some of us, that's the real world.

I'm an attorney in TX, and if I'm in court and a judge gives me an order, I have to obey it or face contempt of court charges.

Even if the order is unconstitutional or illegal.

I could go to jail and be fined, and then be vindicated in my appeal to a higher court that the order was unconstitutional and illegal. I wouldn't have to follow the order, but I'd still have to pay the fine and do the time.

Besides, that is ALSO the state of a given game before errata is issued (hence the rise of house rules). Until the publishing company issues a correction, the rule is the rule, even if its in error.

 

[Anubis]

I never thought of that comparison. Very good. That's about as perfect a comparison as can exist. Perfect.

 

[Legildur]

Besides, it's not like there are glaring errors in the FAQ.

You are joking, right? There have been numerous threads on EnWorld discussing blatantly erroneous answers in the FAQ. Things even newbies could have worked out for themselves, if they had bothered to read the source books. Sheesh!

And as for the consistency of the answers from Cust Serv, I wonder if your position would be so positive if, for example, you were fined or jailed for tax fraud based on flawed advice from your accountant? Would you still use the same accountant, or even rely on their advice without getting a second opinion?

And while we wait for a 'higher court' to issue errata, in the meantime we'll go on building flawed characters while we wait for that occurence, even though we KNOW it is wrong and will someday be varied to what we know is the correct answer (and I'm talking about all the incorrect FAQ answers that have occured here, not just monks and INA).

And trust me, just because a court says something, doesn't mean, for example, any policy of legislative response from government is immediate. They take time to consider the ramifications, their position, and whether to appeal further. So the court analogy, while useful, is narrow, and not necessarily applicable in all situations.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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.

Anubis, if I see one more personal attack by you towards Caliban you'll be taking a holiday from the boards.

For goodness sake, put the guy on ignore if you get so wound up by what he says, or email him if you must, but no more of this name-calling on the forum.

Caliban, I'd ask you to avoid responding to Anubis if he makes a post like this again please. reporting it to the moderators is enough.

Regards,

 

[Pinotage]

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.

Then ask them to correct it. That way we're all contributing to a corrected and better FAQ rather than bickering about it on the boards. Just write them a simple message stating why it's wrong and providing all the evidence required. Simple as that.

Pinotage

 

[FireLance]

And while we wait for a 'higher court' to issue errata, in the meantime we'll go on building flawed characters while we wait for that occurence, even though we KNOW it is wrong and will someday be varied to what we know is the correct answer (and I'm talking about all the incorrect FAQ answers that have occured here, not just monks and INA).

Just wondering: why do you have to wait for the correct answer to be issued to use it in your game? Following what is "RAW" or "official" when an obviously better alternative exists seems rather strange to me. Of course, if your gaming group can't come to some reasonable consensus or compromise about the rules, and the intra-group conflict is ruining your games, I would say there are deeper problems than a simple rules argument.

 

[Legildur]

Just wondering: why do you have to wait for the correct answer to be issued to use it in your game? Following what is "RAW" or "official" when an obviously better alternative exists seems rather strange to me. Of course, if your gaming group can't come to some reasonable consensus or compromise about the rules, and the intra-group conflict is ruining your games, I would say there are deeper problems than a simple rules argument.

I have two groups, and they are both great (large crossover between the two groups though), with zero conflict. So, no, that isn't the problem.

Given that characters in our games usually 'live' for about 2 years real time before a TPK, then any decisions taken on character generation now, are around for some time. And no one wants to re-engineer a character at a later stage because of a rules change (or miss out on an attractive option while waiting for clarification).

It's not that we don't have house rules, but they probably only number half-a-dozen that I can think of off the top of head. Our preference, which may or may not match that of other groups, is to play as closely to the RAW as possible. That way there are no surprises.

One example (and I apologise in advance for using this particular example) is that for a dwarven monk character I inquired about taking Improved Natural Attack. The DM for that group ruled that it was a monster feat (in the MM) and that a monk did not have natural weapons (open to debate I know), and therefore ineligible for the feat - a position for which I had some sympathy.

Now, I could show them the FAQ and say 'look here' he would have been allowed. But I can't in good conscience do that as it is unclear whether that 'clarification' is reliable.

Had it been in Errata, then no questions asked - except, of course, for the possibility to have it house ruled out.

I think WotC are being lazy (on numerous) accounts and need to revise how they do things.

 

[Artoomis]

...Now, I could show them the FAQ and say 'look here' he would have been allowed. But I can't in good conscience do that as it is unclear whether that 'clarification' is reliable.

Had it been in Errata, then no questions asked - except, of course, for the possibility to have it house ruled out...

ROFL.

What do you want? It really couldn't be much more clear. WotC has folks at Customer Service who are dedicated to answering rules questions, and doing so with consistency and using the rules (did you know that?) They use the rules as written, the errata and the FAQ as authoritative sources (that's now be made very clear). I happen to know a customer service rep who's dutied consists solely (I think) of being a rules expert and he is bound by the rules, errata and FAQ to give his answers. He also is bound (I'm pretty sure) by a list of agreed-upon rulings that they use to ensure they all give the same answers (I'll check on this when I see him next).

Is customer service perfect? No, they are just people trying to do a job. If the answer you get seems odd or inconsistent, keep asking - they'll get it right if you give them a chance.

WotC has put in a great deal of effort and money (hiring new people) to improve the customer servic deprtments ability to answer rules questions accurately and consistently.

Given WotC's position that monks taking INA is ABSOLUTELY NOT fodder for errata, how could a clarification on the monks and INA rule be possibly made any more reliable?

This prejuduce against customer service based on some prior bad responses seems to be blinding you (and Caliban, and probably others) to the truth of the matter.

Yes, it's clear that the FAQ sometimes contains errors, just as the rulebooks do. If you spot one and fail to report it to WotC, then, really, you have no one to blame but yourself for a less-than-perfect FAQ. The FAQ also sometimes contains material that you or I may think should be errata, but that does not make the FAQ any less authoritative and controlling as far as what the official rule is for any particular scenario.

Anubis: Better dial it back a notch before the mods give you an offical "time out." Most of your observations have some merit, but the way you express yourself can really take away from your message.

 

[Infiniti2000]

WotC has folks at Customer Service who are dedicated to answering rules questions,

As are many on these and similar forums. So, irrelevant.

and doing so with consistency and using the rules (dd you know that?)

Consistency is a principle concern and that has shown to be false. Even if we can accept that different people rule differently (even on this forum, e.g. Patryn and Hyp can rule differently), the FAQ should never be self-contradictory. Never.

They use the rules as written,

That's likely the goal, but this is arguable. Their interpretation of the RAW, and interpretation is the reason forums like this exist. Without arguing interpretation, we should just close down this forum. In fact, I see no reason why you, Anubis, and others even bother posting here except to berate us for not using the FAQ and considering it, the Sage, and WotC as the word of God.

the errata and the FAQ as authoritative sources (that's now be made very clear).

Official sources, yes, authoritative no. But maybe I don't understand what you mean by authoritative.