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

[Pinotage]

This works (mostly) except for those who refuse to admit when the core rules are unclear - such as some in the INA for monks debate.

Yes, but I'm not sure I understand that. Given the poll results, numerous discussion, etc. how can you still not believe there isn't any doubt?

Pinotage

 

[Artoomis]

Yes, but I'm not sure I understand that. Given the poll results, numerous discussion, etc. how can you still not believe there isn't any doubt?

Pinotage

I believe there is doubt - some actually think that there is no doubt as to how the rules read. I cannot really understand that position, but it's there nonetheless

 

[Pinotage]

I believe there is doubt - some actually think that there is no doubt as to how the rules read. I cannot really understand that position, but it's there nonetheless

Yes, I know you believe there is doubt!

Pinotage

 

[Artoomis]

Yes, I know you believe there is doubt!

Pinotage

I thought you did - but your response asked me how "how can you still not believe there isn't any doubt?" I was pretty sure that was not what you really meant.

By the way, the double negative there could be confusing, but I know what you meant, "how can you still believe there is no doubt," or perhaps,"how can you not believe there is doubt." Right?

 

[irdeggman]

Except you can't do that. The FAQ says that the designation as one-handed, etc., is nothing more than convenience.

Not, "indicative of the way the weapon is being used currently with respect to the following situations."

The FAQ is wrong, Artoomis. Give it up.

I have to disagree. I think this is dependant on how you are reading the FAQ.

What was the question that the Sage was answering? That gives the context of the answer. He didn't stray from this when I read his response. The main question was pertaining to benefits via use (either one-handed or two-handed) and not construction or material type benefits.

To sum up (and abreviate the question) this is what I get as the question being answered.

Since the weapons table shows that a lance is a two-handed weapon, I get all the two-handed benefits no matter how I wield the lance, right?

Note the emphasis on benefits. Benefits have nothing to do with equipment properties, like hardness or hit points. Remember these are also modified by other properties like material of construction which are likewise not addressed by the Sage's answer.

IMO an experience it extremely important to get the context of the discussion down in order to read and understand what is being said in the manner it was intended.

 

[Artoomis]

Update (most recent entry on the top):

Customer (snipped) 11/02/2005 02:19 PM
Well, thanks, but could you get back to me with how these three items will be addressed?

-------------------------------------------

Response (Zephreum H.) 11/02/2005 01:33 PM
Thank you for contacting us.

We appreciate the feedback of our Players. I will pass your concerns along.

Thank you for reporting this.
Take Care!
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.

Zephreum H.

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 ((snip)) 11/02/2005 10:53 AM
Three things:

1. Please fix D&D 3.5 FAQ entries on acid/sonic damage and hardness - one answer says ignore hardness, one says the opposite.

2. Please fix the D&D 3.5 FAQ entry on two-handed weapon (it includes a discussion on the lance used one-handed). The answer was written in such a way as to really mess up the weapon rules realted to (at least) hardness and hit points. Does a lance REALLY have fewer hit point when used one-handed? The FAQ entry would make this so, but clearly that was not the intent.

3. Please change the primary source rule so that it states that primary sources are the core rule, errata AND the FAQ.

See http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=153552 for why I am asking for the FAQ to be declared as a primary rule source. Note that this WILL require that FAQ entries make it very clear when thw answer is only a "best advice" kind of answer - which are ALSO appropriate in the FAQ.

Thanks,

(snip)

 

[Artoomis]

Another update, most recent on top:

[quote = WotC]
Customer (William <snip>) 11/02/2005 02:54 PM
That's not a very satifactory answer, sorry to say.

I recognize that you cannot answer my three points just now, but is it not possible to hold this issue open and answer my concerns as they are addressed by R&D or whoever does such things. I really do not know how many people I am representing here, but it includes quite a number of folks over at EN World at least who are looking to settle these issues.

I understand that by asking you to hold this open I could be creating a problem for you as, typically, a help desk is judged by how quickly questions get answers and isues closed out. Is there not some way to handle this so that I, and through me the folks over at EN World, can get answers without having to wait and see what gets published later.

P.S. When you said "errata" I assume you meant future errata update, FAQ update or updates to the primary source rule.

--------------------------------------

Response (Zephreum H.) 11/02/2005 02:48 PM
William,

Unfortunately I do not have this information to offer you. I have passed on your concerns and if they are addressed by the R&D team they will show up in future errata. I understand your frustration and am sorry I cannot help you further.

Take Care!
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.

Zephreum H.

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 [/quote]

 

[Legildur]

What do you want? It really couldn't be much more clear.

And see, that is where we differ. To my mind, you are willing to accept a lower standard of proof (for want of a better word) than I am. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I am saying that you are not guaranteed to be right, either.

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

And more power to them for recognising the shortcomings they had in this area. I truly hope it works out.

This prejuduce against customer service...

...is well founded and solidly unpinned with strong evidence. But perhaps their game is lifting? And my 'prejudice' is not blinding at all - and 'truth' is such a strong word to use in these contentious circumstances. I just attach an appropriate (subjective) weight to their answers when considering their value in the overall argument.

And for what's worth, there was a period there where I even stopped reading the FAQ as the number of theads on the Rules Forum identifying major faults in answers steadily increased as to throw some doubt (in my mind) over the validity of any of the answers. Or more to the point, I couldn't be bothered sifting the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. To me, the Monk and INA thing is probably wrong (no matter how much I would like it to be true) by the text from the PHB (and other pieces of the puzzle listed numerous times in the now closed thread. But I do see how the (reasonable) argument is formulated that it is allowed. I just don't happen to agree - without revision of said text.

 

[glass]

3. Please change the primary source rule so that it states that primary sources are the core rule, errata AND the FAQ.

Primary sources? Plural? :\


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

Primary sources? Plural? :\


glass.

Yep. It might be clearer to you to think of it as the appropriate core rule book as modified by errata and explained or modified by the FAQ.

Better?