Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 2673071" data-attributes="member: 22424">Well, I think on occasion that the FAQ is used to generate errata. Whether it should be used for this purpose or not is another question.What we actually have are three categories of replies across all FAQ/errata documents.1) Mistakes in the core rules. This includes things like the omission of the statement that PrCs don't count for that experience point penalty. These are things that would have been in the rulebook had someone caught the mistake in time. These should be in the errata documents (only - until the books are reprinted, anyway).2) Clarifications of the rules as they stand in the books. I can't think of a good example off the top of my head, but there are plenty. This is a case where the rules as they are written are unclear, and the answer to the question merely explains it. (Perhaps a good example: Does Quick Draw allow a character to sheathe a weapon as a free action?) These should be in the FAQ (only).3) Areas where the design team now want to change the rules, perhaps because they have found a problem with them as they stand, or perhaps because they just like things a different way. The example below about the Shield spell is a perfect example of this - the answer directly contradicts the RAW, and not in a manner that can be explained as a mistake in the printing of the book - this is something that they've decided needs changed.I'm not sure where the third category of material should go. I do believe (quite strongly, actually) that they should not be in the FAQ. I don't think they should be in the errata, either. They're not mistakes - they're changes.In truth, I think these should either be placed in a third document (Collated Rules Updates, or something like that), or even just filed away for the next edition of the game.</blockquote>

Verification