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

[Coredump]

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?

Only if you are willing to believe that Trevor was 'chastising' WoTC. "Well we *should* keep them separate..." And he neglected, in his fairly long and complete post, to include the "...but we do mix them anyway." Personally, I find that *highly* unlikely. From any reasonable reading of their responses, they are in pretty direct conflict.... surprise surprise.

And, I will note, that there is *still* a difference between a FAQ entry that is knowingly making a rule change, and one that is (apparently) doing it by accident, and one that *says* it is just clarifying the rules, but is, in fact, contradicting them.

So, even if "WoTC" (as in, not just some CustServ worker) states that the FAQ is meant to act as 'official rule changes', they still need to address the need to state such changes as such; so that we can tell those apart from plain errors.

I bring to light the Star Wars Jedi Counseling/FAQ; it *has* been given the 'official rule changes' sanction, but it is *also* very careful to a) get it right b)*label* changes different from errata different from suggestions different from proposed house rules different from opinions. The DnD FAQ does neither.

Does anyone actually believe that the "Sheathe while moving" was a purposeful change in the rules? As opposed to the Sage just remembering wrong?

 

[Anubis]

Actually, I do think Trevor was just saying that the FAQ shouldn't have rules changes, not that it can't. Oh, and I think the free action to cheathe was intentional; it does make sense, after all, that if you can draw for free during a move you can sheathe for free during a move.

Anyway, enough of posting this stuff here. I'll link you to the new thread that will converge this discussion into a single thread. I ask everyone to begin posting there from here on out.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=153953

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, I do think Trevor was just saying that the FAQ shouldn't have rules changes, not that it can't. Oh, and I think the free action to cheathe was intentional; it does make sense, after all, that if you can draw for free during a move you can sheathe for free during a move.

And yet it doesn't make sense that if you can draw for free with a feat you can sheathe for free with a feat?

-Hyp.

 

[Anubis]

You gonna keep taking potshots at me or actually do what I asked and converge these topics into that singular topic covering everything about the FAQ/Errata that I started for that specific purpose?

 

[irdeggman]

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?

How many e-mails did it take you to get to the "final" answer to your original question?

IIRC there were inconsistencies between the various replies given - you have summed them up and tried to simplify/clarify their answers. {Which by the way is their job as Cust Serv}

I do agree with your analysis of the situation though.

Oh and my expereince with Cust Serv (Trevor to be specific) revolved around cohorts and leadership. It took somewhere around 5 attempts before he finally got an answer that wasn't inherently wrong with misquoted info from the DMG. I can't find my copy of the e-mails right now but I'll post them tomorrow when I get to them.

 

[Borlon]

Actually I took Trevor as saying that the errata should not have rules clarifications, but that it does. I.e. the two sources sometimes overlap, but the overlap is the other way. Not that rules changes are in the FAQ, but that rules clarifications are in the errata.

 

[Anubis]

Oh and my expereince with Cust Serv (Trevor to be specific) revolved around cohorts and leadership. It took somewhere around 5 attempts before he finally got an answer that wasn't inherently wrong with misquoted info from the DMG. I can't find my copy of the e-mails right now but I'll post them tomorrow when I get to them.

In that case, it sounds like Trevor is just a single incompetent member of customer service.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm leaving the Monk/INA thread open for Monk/INA discussion, and the longest of the multiple FAQ threads open for FAQ discussion.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)