Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 2673002" data-attributes="member: 111">There are several other discussions on this.&nbsp; This one is to discuss ONLY whether the FAQ scope includes issuing errata/new rules.&nbsp; Use examples as needed, but only to support your position, please.&nbsp;Note that the only errata NOT found in the FAQ is that already posted in errata documents - WotC is letting us know they will use the FAQ as a source for errata NOT found in the errata documents.&nbsp; And they do this.&nbsp; The problem, of course, is that they do not clearly label when a statement is to be considered errata and when it is not.The result is that it's a little hard, sometimes, to figure out if a particular FAQ item is:1. An official clarification/interpretation.2. Merely intended as good Advice.3. An official, actual rules change (errata).4. Some combination of the above three that also includes an unintentional error when explaining a rule.Further, I submit that WotC already has used the FAQ as errata - two examples (one is historical) are (thanks Hyp):Also:This last has been confirmed as being published into the new leather-bound DMG (Thanks, Caliban).&nbsp; It is definately not in the published errata (except insofar as the FAQ is, in part, published errata).BTW:&nbsp;&nbsp; I do not think the FAQ should be used this way, but, unfortunately, it is, as evidenced above.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Artoomis, post: 2673002, member: 111"] There are several other discussions on this. This one is to discuss ONLY whether the FAQ scope includes issuing errata/new rules. Use examples as needed, but only to support your position, please. Note that the only errata NOT found in the FAQ is that already posted in errata documents - WotC is letting us know they will use the FAQ as a source for errata NOT found in the errata documents. And they do this. The problem, of course, is that they do not clearly label when a statement is to be considered errata and when it is not. The result is that it's a little hard, sometimes, to figure out if a particular FAQ item is: 1. An official clarification/interpretation. 2. Merely intended as good Advice. 3. An official, actual rules change (errata). 4. Some combination of the above three that also includes an unintentional error when explaining a rule. Further, I submit that WotC already has used the FAQ as errata - two examples (one is historical) are (thanks Hyp): Also: This last has been confirmed as being published into the new leather-bound DMG (Thanks, Caliban). It is definately [b][i]not[/i][/b][i][/i] in the published errata (except insofar as the FAQ [b][i]is[/i][/b][i][/i], in part, published errata). BTW: I do not think the FAQ [b][i]should[/i][/b][i][/i] be used this way, but, unfortunately, it is, as evidenced above. [/QUOTE]

Verification