Do you think the FAQ is being used as the official source for new rules?

[Coredump]

New poll with a better(?) question.

How many threads/polls/etc. do we need talking about the *same* issue??

And my point *still* isn't a vote option.

d) It doesn't matter what WoTC is/isn't/thinks it is doing,since it is doing it in such a slip-shod ad-hoc manner, any 'errata' or 'changes' in the FAQ cannot be distinguished from plain mistakes and bad ideas.

 

[Coredump]

(cut and paste from one of the other 19 threads on the topic)

anubis posting for AndyThis is an unfortunate example of an old misinterpretation lingering far too
long. Thanks for catching the reference; I'll make sure it's fixed in later
publications of the FAQ.

But that is part of the problem. It was the *Sage's* mistake that is *still* in the FAQ

anubisOh, and whether you like it or not, the FAQ is 100% official in every way, including rules changes and errata.

What CustServ actually said

anubis posting for custserv1. Absolutely, the FAQ is considered to be a log of official rules clarifications. It is considered to be official.

Note, that while they say 'absolutely', what they follow with is that the FAQ is for rules *clarifications*

Now the question they did not answer is "There are statements made in the FAQ, that go against the rules written in the books, but they are not labeled as errata, nor are they even noted as being a change at all. Are those mistakes? Or should the FAQ be considered the new primary source, even if the changes are not called out as such?"
It would also help to follow up with some of those statements, like the sheathing during movement, and changing out light one two handed labels work.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Perhaps you can ask Cust Serv... "What is the difference between the FAQ and errata?" Or "What is the purpose of the FAQ and errata, and what makes one different from the other?" I'd really like to know, and I would ask myself, but I think it might make more sense replying w/ your questions that you previously asked. If you would be so kind

 

[gabrion]

i voted no because the yes answer is really loaded, making this poll a joke in the first place. a good poll doesn't use options that are aimed at getting a specific response. shame on you artoomis.

 

[Anubis]

What CustServ actually said

Note, that while they say 'absolutely', what they follow with is that the FAQ is for rules *clarifications*

You think I don't know how to read? Well this is quite "selective reading" if I do say so myself. Well, in case you didn't notice, I asked about it twice. Since the answer the first time was indeed a bit vague, I asked a more specific question. Allow me to quote myself, and you can check my above post yourself:

I asked: "Oh, and a clarification of my first question. Does your response mean that actual rules changes in the FAQ are official as well and that there are instances of errata in it?"

The answer was: "Yes, everything in the FAQ is meant to be official."

I asked a yes or no question and got, in no uncertain terms, a yes.

 

[glass]

I have a question for those answering "It's simply not allowed...".

Simply not allowed by... Who? What?

I voted for that option, because it was the only 'no' option, but it's not exactly my answer.

It's not a case of not being allowed, it's a case of not having the power.


glass.

 

[Pinotage]

I voted yes. It is used that way, though rarely, but shouldn't be used that way.

Pinotage

 

[irdeggman]

Infiniti2000

I answered "Nope." The rest was meaningless as it was the only "No"-related choice to what I consider a confusing lead-directing question.

Coredump

How many threads/polls/etc. do we need talking about the *same* issue??

And my point *still* isn't a vote option.

d) It doesn't matter what WoTC is/isn't/thinks it is doing,since it is doing it in such a slip-shod ad-hoc manner, any 'errata' or 'changes' in the FAQ cannot be distinguished from plain mistakes and bad ideas.

gabrion

i voted no because the yes answer is really loaded, making this poll a joke in the first place. a good poll doesn't use options that are aimed at getting a specific response. shame on you artoomis.

glass

I voted for that option, because it was the only 'no' option, but it's not exactly my answer.

It's not a case of not being allowed, it's a case of not having the power.

View Poll Results: Do you think the FAQ is being used as the official source for new rules?

Yes, though it's not supposed to be used that way.

Nope. It's simply not allowed - and so any FAQ rules changes may be ignored.

It does not matter - anything WotC says is "law," - after all they own the game!

To pretty much all of the above. Artoomis made a valiant attempt to clarify the question (and problem at the root of it all). The question was do you think the FAQ is being used this way? (Paraphrased). People are answering based on whether or not it “legally” should be used that way or using real world definitions for terms used by WotC in trying to make their opinions known.

The answers could have been worded better, IMO. But based on the way people have answered this question in the past (on almost too many threads to count) – it is obvious to me he was trying to focus the discussion somewhat.

The real question is not whether or not it should be done this way but is WotC doing it this way. So IMO the answer choices should be simply have been:

Yes
No
Other (please explain)
Abstain

There is no ambiguity in these choices, especially if the original post clarifies the intent by stating the question is not about whether or not this is the way it should be done but about whether or not it is the way that WotC has made/been using it.

Also, based on my personal experience with CustServ – they tend to really give the impression that they do not know what they are talking about. It usually takes 2 (and sometimes up to 5) different exchanges to get the specific question asked actually answered. I had posted a while ago my exchanges with them on the leadership feat/cohorts issue and it took somewhere around 5 replies to get the actual question answered – including an initial response that was clearly wrong and when pointed out the Cust Serv rep admitted that and wondered how he could have misread the text. So I take them with a grain of sand and only use their responses as an additional data point when trying to come up with a preponderance of evidence when trying to make rules clarifications, etc.

I also agree with Artoomis that the “final” yes from CustServ was in response to his last question, which specifically asked whether or not the FAQ included rules changes also.


Yes, everything in the FAQ is meant to be official.

I hope this information is useful.
Good Gaming!
Chris L.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

Well, on page 39, the entry states that hardness applies to acid, sonic, and force effects; On page 53, the entry states that acid, sonic, and force effects ignore hardness. Based on your previous answer, can I take that to mean the entry on page 53 is in error from a previous ruling and that hardness does indeed apply to acid, sonic, and force effects?

Oh, and a clarification of my first question. Does your response mean that actual rules changes in the FAQ are official as well and that there are instances of errata in it?

Artoomis – just to make it absolutely clear what the Cust Serv response is/was – why don’t you send them back a reply asking specifically about that last one without inclusion of any other potential questions that may muck up their answer?

I did point out earlier how frustrating getting a question answered by CustServ is didn’t I?

 

[Artoomis]

...Artoomis – just to make it absolutely clear what the Cust Serv response is/was – why don’t you send them back a reply asking specifically about that last one without inclusion of any other potential questions that may muck up their answer?

I did point out earlier how frustrating getting a question answered by CustServ is didn’t I?

I was not me who sent the earlier not, but I did just send one:

Questions (Please indicate WotC's position on this, not just your own opinion):

1. Is the v3.5 Main D&D FAQ being used by WotC to issue errata and rule changes?

2. If WotC is using the FAQ to publish rules changes and errata, are we to assume that anything published in the FAQ is indeed the official rule - in other words, an extension of errata? Except, of course, for those items clearly marked as advice only, as some are (things like, "the sage suggests...")

If your answers to (1) and (2) above indicate that errata and rule changes may be found in the FAQ, could you please have your web site changed to reflect that fact? Also, please change the introductory text in the FAQ itself to make the scope of the FAQ very clear.

Background:

This has been the subject of MUCH interest on ENWorld, and, I'm sure, other places as well.

Normally one would not expect a FAQ to actually be used to issue rules changes. It does seem that this may be happening, though.

The web site for the FAQ states:

"Do you have questions about the D&D game rules? Download the official FAQ that best suits your needs. Each FAQ is presented in PDF format so that you can download it, print it, and take it to your game. They feature a date code in the footer so you can always be sure that you have the most current version. (These game rule FAQs do not cover errata found in the errata documents.)"

This seems to, at most, leave the door open for you to include errata and does not mention rule changes at all, leaving one to wonder if such things in the FAQ are intended or are accidents.

For example:

The fact that prestige classes do not count for XP penalties was left out of 3.5, but added back in through the FAQ and NOT through the errata documents. This is now published in the leather-bound DMG, making it at least appear that the FAQ was used to publish errata.

Recently a FAQ entry mentioned, in passing, that sheathing a weapon may be done when moving just like drawing a weapon, but the rules don't say that. Is that an error or a change to the rules?

We don't know - if we knew that the FAQ was intended to publish errata and rule changes, then we would assume that the bit about sheathing weapons was a rule change. In fact, we'd assume anything published in the FAQ was the rule unless designated as only advice - something like ""in my game I'd...," or "I suggest you..." Anything else we would assume is either an official rule change, errata or an official interpretation/clarifiaction of the rules - all equally "official" as far as stating what the rules are - as written in the books.

An example of advice (last sentence is clearly only advice) is :

Do feats that grant spell-like abilities, such as Spell Hand (Complete Arcane, page 83), have to be taken at 1st level? If not, how is this rationalized in game terms? How does a character suddenly learn to use spell-like abilities?
No. If this were the case, the feat's description would clearly state it (see Precocious Apprentice on page 181 for an example). As for explaining it in terms of the game world, the Sage advises thinking of it as a sudden manifestation of a latent (but until-now unknown) ability; only now has the character realized his innate magical talents, even though they were present and hidden beforehand.

Thanks for all your help.

 

[Dimwhit]

Nice, Artoomis. Though you should've also mention the whole Primary Source thing people keep quoting. Seems that this is what needs to be changed in the errata file to allow for the FAQ to having meaning with some people.

I still don't see why it should be necessary, but several threads and hundreds (if not thousands) of posts seems to show it is...