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

[Infiniti2000]

There you have it, the bottom line. Now can we stop debating this ridiculous topic? It's over. WotC has spoken.

The bottom line as given by WotC: "Explaining the rules (like the FAQ) and changing the rules (with an errata) are two very different things. FAQ should not change the rules, and errata should not simply explain them, though some errata could be made to clarify how something works." So, stop debating and accept the law as handed down by the almighty WotC, Anubis.

 

[Anubis]

Actually, I did read your post, but I don't think it really contradicts anything. Trevor stated that clarifications in the FAQ and changes in the errata should not overlap, while my sources said the FAQ is indeed a source of errata. This is only contradictory if you ignore Trevor's "should not". Basically, this confirms what Artoomis said: the FAQ wasn't originally intended to print errata, but WotC went against that guideline and did it anyway. Still, the FAQ and the errata do not overlap (in other words, they don't contradict each other), so that would make both Trevor and my sources correct with no contradictions.

Good grief you people will find anything to keep this crap going.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Good grief you people will find anything to keep this crap going.

Right back at ya. Talk about selective reading.

 

[Borlon]

Anubis,

You can stop debating this topic any time you want. I don't think anyone is forcing you to read or post in this thread, are they?

Trevor says that the FAQ and the errata are very different things; rules clarifications are in the former, and rules changes are in the latter. Zephreum says that they do overlap; the FAQ includes rules changes (as well as rules clarifications).

The one example of overlap that Trevor admits could happen is that the errata might clarify the rules; in other words the errata could do something that could be done by the FAQ, but not the other way around. Changing or adding to the rules is, according to Trevor, the function of the errata, not the FAQ.

 

[gabrion]

If you don't think the statements...

Yes the D&D FAQ is also a source for Errata.

Explaining the rules (like the FAQ) and changing the rules (with an errata) are two very different things.

...have an inherent conflict, then I guess this debate is pointless. Although thinking back on it, the debate was pretty pointless from the get go.

*scratches head and wonders why he is talking about this issue other than being angry at bad polling techniques*

 

[Borlon]

Although thinking back on it, the debate was pretty pointless from the get go.

I know. This thread is the kind of thing that gives the Rules Forum a bad reputation. I don't know why I can't resist posting in it.

 

[irdeggman]

gabrion

If you don't think the statements...


Quote:
Yes the D&D FAQ is also a source for Errata.



Quote:
Explaining the rules (like the FAQ) and changing the rules (with an errata) are two very different things.



...have an inherent conflict, then I guess this debate is pointless.

I seem to recall mentioning somethign about Cust Serv a bit earlier, oh yeah. . .

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 generally find them to be even worse in consistent accuracy than the Sage as shown above.

 

[Artoomis]

...I generally find them to be even worse in consistent accuracy than the Sage as shown above.

So far on this issue they've said:

The FAQ is offical.
The FAQ should not issue errata.
The FAQ is a source for errata (thus showing, perhaps, that they do what they should not do, my point all along).

Sure, it could have been phrased better, but that's what it looks like to me. Is any of that inaccurate or significantly incomplete?

 

[3d6]

I voted yes, but they shouldn't. The FAQ clearly does not go through the same kind of vetting process that the actual errata documents do. Things like the acid/sonic damage hardness question, the sheathing of weapons question, or the pixie racial hit dice question show that the FAQ is simply one man writing answers to questions, often without consulting the rulebook. Using a document with that sort of process to issue lists of errata is going to result in a great ambiguity about which deviations from are errors in the FAQ and which devations are errors in the RAW. In order for the FAQ to have any credibility as a source of corrections, it needs to be clearly indicated which answers should be considered corrections. Then, if a change from the core rules was found that was not marked as a correction, it could simply be disregarded, rather than having these heated debates. The current system is simply sloppy and unprofessional.

 

[Artoomis]

I voted yes, but they shouldn't. The FAQ clearly does not go through the same kind of vetting process that the actual errata documents do. Things like the acid/sonic damage hardness question, the sheathing of weapons question, or the pixie racial hit dice question show that the FAQ is simply one man writing answers to questions, often without consulting the rulebook. Using a document with that sort of process to issue lists of errata is going to result in a great ambiguity about which deviations from are errors in the FAQ and which devations are errors in the RAW. In order for the FAQ to have any credibility as a source of corrections, it needs to be clearly indicated which answers should be considered corrections. Then, if a change from the core rules was found that was not marked as a correction, it could simply be disregarded, rather than having these heated debates. The current system is simply sloppy and unprofessional.

Agreed.