[Epic] Feats

Pax said:
Ah, but, it's not even certain teh text in question was a mistake.
Yes it is, by definition. When a correction is issued, that is an implicit announcement that the original text is incorrect.

When a book is printed, mistakes are in it forever. The FAQ is a continually maintained electronic document, so mistakes can be fixed; that's why it contains the current and (by definition) correct interpretation of all the rules.

WOTC makes the official rules. The FAQ states the official rules. Anything else is unofficial, or a house rule, or just plain wrong.

If a wrong passage in the ELH implied that characters became epic at level 12, and the FAQ corrected it, would you insist on taking epic feats for a Wiz13?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

AuraSeer said:
If a wrong passage in the ELH implied that characters became epic at level 12, and the FAQ corrected it, would you insist on taking epic feats for a Wiz13?

If there were no contradictory statements in teh entire rest of the book -- yes. A FAQ is not an errata, no matter how much WOTC wants to misuse them as such, and changes to what the book says belong in an errata not a FAQ.

If WOTC wants to be too lazy to actually errata a book, that's their problem, not mine.

So; when such a ruling is placed in an actual for real errata, it will change what the book says. Until then, that answer is merely a recommended house rule, and nothing more.

To top it off, I don't like it because it FURTHER penalises multiclass characters, far more than they deserve. God forbid, after all, that someone should want to DIVERSIFY their character, rather than continue down the road of increasing=-one-dimensionality.

Feh.

I don't thionk that section of rules is a "mistake", I think someone (Andy perhaps) either never liked it, or, didn't understand it properly before the book was printed, and then discovered they didn't like it.

So, they try to "fix" things after the fact, without admitting they did something wrong. Instead, they prefer to imply people are stupid and "just don't understand the book" or whatever.

I understand it quite well; I also understand that the FAQ is (needlessly) in direct contradiction of the book. So, I choose to ignore the unneccessary so-called "fix", and play by the book as published.

Simple concept in play here: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 

[W]hen such a ruling is placed in an actual for real errata, it will change what the book says. Until then, that answer is merely a recommended house rule, and nothing more.
So you refuse to accept the correction because the filename says "FAQ" instead of "errata"?

Alllllll righty then. You have fun with that. I'll just be over here, in the world of logical arguments and things that make sense. (I like it here, it's not at all crowded...)
 

AuraSeer said:

So you refuse to accept the correction because the filename says "FAQ" instead of "errata"?

Alllllll righty then. You have fun with that. I'll just be over here, in the world of logical arguments and things that make sense. (I like it here, it's not at all crowded...)

That is probaly not the sole reason:

1) The intrepretation put forward by Bruce Cordell is a sensible one (see my earlier statements)
2) A co-writer has expressed his sentiments to that effect as well (aforesaid Bruce Cordell)
3) The ability to think independantly of whatever is written in some file stored on a server somewhere.
4)This file, which may be updated at any time, apparently forces many players to change the way they play their "games".
 

AuraSeer said:
So you refuse to accept the correction because the filename says "FAQ" instead of "errata"?

Alllllll righty then. You have fun with that. I'll just be over here, in the world of logical arguments and things that make sense. (I like it here, it's not at all crowded...)

Refusing to accept rules changes in a "FAQ" (rather than an errata) is not only not illogical, it should be expected by the publisher.

Picture Joe Gamer buying the ELH, and reading the passage exactly as I did. Joe believes he understands that rule perfectly; therefor, Joe does not have any questions. If joe is unaware that WOTC is misusing the concept of a FAQ, to do double-duty as a slipshod form of errata ...

... why would Joe Gamer ever even think to LOOK in the FAQ in the first place?!?

That's why you make changes and corrections to a published work in an errata, not a FAQ. FAQs are for people who have questions about the rulebook in question, IOW, for people who don't understand the rules, or are unsure their understanding is correct.

Anyone who's reasonably confident with their understanding of the book, however, would never have cause to look in the FAQ.

However, they would have every reason to look in a document labelled "Errata", because they would know the document was intended to contain changes to the book(s) in question.

I use a document the way it's label states it is INTENDED to be used. A FAQ is not intended to be used to change what is written; only to clarify meaning. So, where the FAQ contradicts the rulebook without referencing some piece of information from an actual errata, the FAQ steps outside the bounaries of what it is SUPPOSED to be and do.

Which is when I look at it as "recommended houserules" country, and by and large, I tend to completely disregard large swaths of such.
 
Last edited:

Pax said:
However, they would have every reason to look in a document labelled "Errata", because they would know the document was intended to contain changes to the book(s) in question.

I use a document the way it's label states it is INTENDED to be used. A FAQ is not intended to be used to change what is written; only to clarify meaning. So, where the FAQ contradicts the rulebook without referencing some piece of information from an actual errata, the FAQ steps outside the bounaries of what it is SUPPOSED to be and do.

The problem with this is that it isn't like everyone read it the same way. Yes, others have interpreted it as you have, but many more of us have read it exactly the way the FAQ AND Andy answered. Why do you ask a question on here if you refuse to listen to those of us who answered your question...?:confused:
 

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
The problem with this is that it isn't like everyone read it the same way. Yes, others have interpreted it as you have, but many more of us have read it exactly the way the FAQ AND Andy answered. Why do you ask a question on here if you refuse to listen to those of us who answered your question...?:confused:

Excuse me?

I didn't ask the bloody question.

And I never said everyone would read something the same way.

What I'm saying is, if WOTC feels they need to change a rule form what's published, they need to put it in the sort of document that screams "hey! over here! the rules changed, buddy, check me out!"

Rather than one that says "hey, if you don't understand something, I can help you out."

After all, if Joe Gamer UNDERSTANDS the rules in the book he paid for just fine, then he won't have QUESTIONS that'd make him need to be reading the FAQ in the first place.

Changes to teh rules are errata. errata belong in an Errata.

Not a FAQ. Around here, the alleged "question" at hand isn't frequently asked; I don't know of anyone that holds the interpretation espoused by Andy Collins ... everyone around here read it and got Bruce's version.

And noone questioned it, so, noone would have reason to dig through the FAQ looking for an answer.

Which is why the fAW is the wrong bloody place to be "fixing mistakes" ...
 

Or, Joe Gamer who is familiar with the workings of Wizards might go "Hey, Wizards places new info in the FAQ, perhaps I'll look there." Or Joe Gamer will go "I'm unclear of this rule, so I'll ask on the Wizards boards or EN World or one of the other dozen Gamer boards out there" and then the people on the boards direct him to the FAQ.

Errata in the FAQ is not a problem at all. People can easily find it there. But I urge you to continually complain about it, but I'd direct your complaints to the Wizards boards. Perhaps over there you can set them straight as I'm sure they are willing to see the "error" of their ways. Complaining about it over here serves nothing.
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top