FAQ: a reliable source?

[pawsplay]

Ahh but it also doesn't state that it "keeps its shape".

And fireball doesn't state that it doesn't cause your pantaloons to bunch, and so what? Anyway, this topic is becoming a tangent.

 

[Mistwell]

And fireball doesn't state that it doesn't cause your pantaloons to bunch, and so what? Anyway, this topic is becoming a tangent.

My copy of the special edition PHB does have that pantaloon clause. Yours doesn't?

 

[pawsplay]

My copy of the special edition PHB does have that pantaloon clause. Yours doesn't?

Danged undocumented errata!

 

[hong]

You could get around this by the simple strategem of not wearing pantaloons.

 

[Rystil Arden]

You could get around this by the simple strategem of not wearing pantaloons.

Duh! diaglo figured out that particular rules exploit back in 1974. He's been using it ever since

 

[pawsplay]

You could get around this by the simple strategem of not wearing pantaloons.

Isn't there a feat in the FRCS that gives you the benefits of wearing pantaloons even when you're not wearing them?

 

[HeavenShallBurn]

Isn't there a feat in the FRCS that gives you the benefits of wearing pantaloons even when you're not wearing them?

I'm not sure but I may have seen one that gives you the benefits of thinking you're wearing them

 

[Rystil Arden]

I'm not sure but I may have seen one that gives you the benefits of thinking you're wearing them

Oh, you must mean The Emperor's New Clothes. The trouble is the Wisdom 8 or lower prerequisite to take the feat and the annoying fact that you lose your powers if someone with 5 or lower Int calls you on it.

 

[irdeggman]

However, there are rare times when the rules as written in the core rules are also flawed (and never corrected by the errata). For example, the "prestige classes don't charge an experience point penalty for multiclassing" rule is not in the core rules.

From what people have posted the Collector's Edition DMG does have the correction included. Dang "stealth errata".

 

[TheGogmagog]

Duh! diaglo figured out that particular rules exploit back in 1974. He's been using it ever since

Those darn live action role players! :sick

Anywhoo... back on topic.
Oddly enough I can't find any actual RAW contradictions. The ones that come to my mind were 3.0 specific about tower shields and the shield spell.
The FAQ does have a 'variant' form of mirror image, but they at least have the decency to point out that it's not RAW.

Aside from that there are just debatable rulings that extend/extrapolate RAW. It would be nice if they had the courtesy to say when they are doing that. (Hmm, a red-letter version of FAQ?).