Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Borlon" data-source="post: 2673246" data-attributes="member: 27589">I say that the FAQ comes under the heading of Good Advice.&nbsp; It is a recommended rules interpretation/change made by an employee of WotC and widely disseminated on the internet.&nbsp; It deserves serious consideration. However, it doesn't change what the rules in the books say; to do that, you have to republish the books.&nbsp; What is in the books is the default.&nbsp; And it is the DM's option to accept any proposed changes to the Rules As Printed (RAP).&nbsp; That is, a player should assume that whatever is in the books used in the campaign (especially the PHB) is true unless the DM says otherwise.&nbsp; But a player has to ask what else is on par with the RAP, whether that be errata, or the FAQ, or WotC Customer Service responses, or Andy Collins' house rules or anything else.&nbsp; The status of these things can't just be assumed without asking.&nbsp; So the FAQ doesn't and can't change the rules; it just suggests a change that a DM might then adopt.&nbsp; But if the DM doesn't do anything, the suggested ruling does not take effect.&nbsp; Only republishing the books can change the default ruling; and even then a DM could change it back (but he would actually have to do something before this could happen).There are times when it is perfectly appropriate for the DM not to adopt a FAQ ruling.&nbsp; Suppose the books are consistent and clear in ruling something (the size of a bastard sword, say) and you decide as a DM to reject a contrary ruling found in the FAQ. Are you thereby creating a &quot;house rule&quot;?&nbsp; I don't think so.&nbsp; Can you contradict the FAQ and still be interpreting the RAW?&nbsp; I think so.When an answer, based on the various writings on an issue, differs from the FAQ, this is not an instance of house rules.&nbsp; It is just illustrative of the fact that when the RAW is ambiguous or contradictory, there will be different answers to a question, each of which is accurate according to the RAW.&nbsp; Determining and weighing these answers is part of this forum's business.In a discussion in the Rules Forum, there is obviously a lot of value to the FAQ.&nbsp; But it does not close the case on a rules discussion.&nbsp; It can highlight areas where rules are contradictory or possible to misinterpret, and provide grist to the mill.&nbsp; It can point out areas where the rules might work better or be more transparent if they were tweaked just a little.&nbsp; But these would be instances of Good Advice, not necessarily the Best Advice.&nbsp; When people ask about a question in this forum, they are looking for the best advice they can get on an issue, and sometimes that will be different from what the FAQ says.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Borlon, post: 2673246, member: 27589"] I say that the FAQ comes under the heading of Good Advice. It is a recommended rules interpretation/change made by an employee of WotC and widely disseminated on the internet. It deserves serious consideration. However, it doesn't change what the rules in the books say; to do that, you have to republish the books. What is in the books is the default. And it is the DM's option to accept any proposed changes to the Rules As Printed (RAP). That is, a player should assume that whatever is in the books used in the campaign (especially the PHB) is true unless the DM says otherwise. But a player has to ask what else is on par with the RAP, whether that be errata, or the FAQ, or WotC Customer Service responses, or Andy Collins' house rules or anything else. The status of these things can't just be assumed without asking. So the FAQ doesn't and can't change the rules; it just suggests a change that a DM might then adopt. But if the DM doesn't do anything, the suggested ruling does not take effect. Only republishing the books can change the default ruling; and even then a DM could change it back (but he would actually have to do something before this could happen). There are times when it is perfectly appropriate for the DM not to adopt a FAQ ruling. Suppose the books are consistent and clear in ruling something (the size of a bastard sword, say) and you decide as a DM to reject a contrary ruling found in the FAQ. Are you thereby creating a "house rule"? I don't think so. Can you contradict the FAQ and still be interpreting the RAW? I think so. When an answer, based on the various writings on an issue, differs from the FAQ, this is not an instance of house rules. It is just illustrative of the fact that when the RAW is ambiguous or contradictory, there will be different answers to a question, each of which is accurate according to the RAW. Determining and weighing these answers is part of this forum's business. In a discussion in the Rules Forum, there is obviously a lot of value to the FAQ. But it does not close the case on a rules discussion. It can highlight areas where rules are contradictory or possible to misinterpret, and provide grist to the mill. It can point out areas where the rules might work better or be more transparent if they were tweaked just a little. But these would be instances of Good Advice, not necessarily the Best Advice. When people ask about a question in this forum, they are looking for the best advice they can get on an issue, and sometimes that will be different from what the FAQ says. [/QUOTE]

Verification