Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 2676336" data-attributes="member: 111">The parenthetical statement merely opened the door, it did not actually state that the FAQ would issue any errata and/or rule changes.&nbsp; With the door open, they've charged right in - intentionally or not.One would think so - but not if that were not the original idea.&nbsp; I submit that they've kind of &quot;backed in&quot; to using the FAQ for changing rules and did not really intend to do that.Incorrect.&nbsp; Although this appears to be merely an omission, prestige clases are non-preferred classes for all races (except humans, of course) and, as such, by the core rules prior to any changes, would impose an XP penalty.&nbsp; This rule was changed back to the 3.0 rule by the FAQ, and then eventually published into the leather-bound DMG.&nbsp; Clearly this was using the FAQ to publish a rule change.Correct - it is not a RELIABLE place for errata - that does not change the fact that they are using it for one.&nbsp; It is difficult to know when they've changed a rule and when it might be just an off-hand comment that was not intended as a rule change (aka: an error).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Artoomis, post: 2676336, member: 111"] The parenthetical statement merely opened the door, it did not actually state that the FAQ would issue any errata and/or rule changes. With the door open, they've charged right in - intentionally or not. One would think so - but not if that were not the original idea. I submit that they've kind of "backed in" to using the FAQ for changing rules and did not really intend to do that. Incorrect. Although this appears to be merely an omission, prestige clases are non-preferred classes for all races (except humans, of course) and, as such, by the core rules prior to any changes, would impose an XP penalty. This rule was changed back to the 3.0 rule by the FAQ, and then eventually published into the leather-bound DMG. Clearly this was using the FAQ to publish a rule change. Correct - it is not a RELIABLE place for errata - that does not change the fact that they are using it for one. It is difficult to know when they've changed a rule and when it might be just an off-hand comment that was not intended as a rule change (aka: an error). [/QUOTE]

Verification