Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Coredump" data-source="post: 2673604" data-attributes="member: 6939">So to expand on this.3.0 comes out, and it says nothing about invis creatures *not* providing a flanking bonus.In the 3.0 FAQ, Skip says &quot;Invis creatures do not provide flanking bonus&quot; and people say &quot;See, it is in the FAQ, that is as good as errata!Then 3.5 comes out. And lo and behold, it is *not* in the rules again.And again, Skip decides that they still shouldn't. And once again people claim that it should be accepted as FAQ.See where the problem lies? Intellectually, sure, they may use the FAQ as errata, but they also use it to publish house rules, and to contridict themselves, and to *casually* get the rules wrong. So a dictionary that spells *some* words right, and some wrong, is worthless. The way the present what turn out to be rule changes, are often done in a very casual manner, that does *not* seem to indicate that they are even aware that they are changing the rules. When he casually says you can sheathe a weapon while moving... is that errata? Its not like he said &quot;Despite what it says in the rules, you can do this&quot;. It sure sounds more like a mistake than anything else. And while he is a designer, he is only one designer, and he does seem to get things just plain wrong sometimes, and even contradict his *own* answers.So we are supposed to assume that he is correct? ever?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Coredump, post: 2673604, member: 6939"] So to expand on this. 3.0 comes out, and it says nothing about invis creatures *not* providing a flanking bonus. In the 3.0 FAQ, Skip says "Invis creatures do not provide flanking bonus" and people say "See, it is in the FAQ, that is as good as errata! Then 3.5 comes out. And lo and behold, it is *not* in the rules again. And again, Skip decides that they still shouldn't. And once again people claim that it should be accepted as FAQ. See where the problem lies? Intellectually, sure, they may use the FAQ as errata, but they also use it to publish house rules, and to contridict themselves, and to *casually* get the rules wrong. So a dictionary that spells *some* words right, and some wrong, is worthless. The way the present what turn out to be rule changes, are often done in a very casual manner, that does *not* seem to indicate that they are even aware that they are changing the rules. When he casually says you can sheathe a weapon while moving... is that errata? Its not like he said "Despite what it says in the rules, you can do this". It sure sounds more like a mistake than anything else. And while he is a designer, he is only one designer, and he does seem to get things just plain wrong sometimes, and even contradict his *own* answers. So we are supposed to assume that he is correct? ever? [/QUOTE]

Verification