FAQ: a reliable source?

[Stalker0]

I find the document generally reliable, and great for solving rules disputes. There have been many issues in this forum where the rules are in fact very vague, and multiple interpretations crop up. Its nice to have a document that says, "Both sides could be right, but this side is actually right."

I find what happens a lot is the people on the other side of the fence just ignore the FAQ, still believing their way is the right way. That to me is bogus.

 

[SlagMortar]

Here's one where the answer to the question is correct, but the extra (bolded by me) statements conflict with the rules:

Does Quick Draw (Player’s Handbook, page 98) allow
you to sheathe a weapon as a free action?

No. Quick Draw clearly states that it allows you to “draw a
weapon as a free action.” Nowhere does it suggest anything
about sheathing a weapon more quickly than normal (a move
action).
You may be confusing Quick Draw with the ability of any
character with a base attack bonus of +1 or better to draw or
sheathe a weapon as a free action as part of movement
(Player’s Handbook, page 142). While these functions are
similar and overlap to some extent, they are different.

In fact, according to the player's handbook, you can not sheathe a weapon as a free action as part of movement.

 

[Legildur]

I find what happens a lot is the people on the other side of the fence just ignore the FAQ, still believing their way is the right way. That to me is bogus.

May I refer you to SlagMortar's post immediately above this one as to why some people may discount the FAQ?

 

[Deset Gled]

If anyone has some other valid ones (i.e. not subject to debate and interpretation), I'd like to add them to this list.

Some other uncorrected errors:
-The question about handedness and the lance says that the PHB lists weapons sizes as a matter of convenience. This article in correct using 3.0 rules, but is blatantly incorrent in 3.5. Hyp had a conversation with some people in CustServ awhile back where they admited this was incorrect, but couldn't get it updated.
-The part of the FAQ that states "The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t
use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike." The rules do. "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." It doesn't get much more explicit than that. Obviously, the rest of the answer given based on this premise is flawed.
-The question about monks using natural weapons as part of a Flurry of Blows (some people argue about this, I suppose).

Some other errors that I can remember that appear to be corrected:
-An error in the LA for a Pixie (the author forgot that you can drop the 1 racial HD)
-An error stating you can sheath a weapon as part of a move (you can only draw).


To me, there are a few issues with the reliablity of the FAQ:

1. Inconsistency. The FAQ does not always agree with the RotG articles, other texts published on WotCs website, or even itself. The Primary Source can become unclear, which can lead to a lot of issues.

2. Reasoning. There are some times when the FAQ gives an OK answer, but gives a reason that is pure BS. There are other times no reasoning is given, so we don't know how they came to a conclusion (Did they just make it up, or are they basing it on something?).

3. Updates. As you can tell from this thread, there are at least a couple answers that are blatantly wrong, but have never been updated. There are also many more incorrect answers that have been updated and fixed. IME, if an error isn't caught pretty quick after being put in the FAQ, it's going to be there forever, even if they put in a new questions whose answer contradicts an older answer. Basically, WotC only seems to care about selling new material, not updating the old stuff.

4. "Official"-ness. The FAQ claims that it is an "official" rules source. The problem is "official" doesn't mean anything in terms of the rules. In the rules, the only thing that matters in the Primary Source. There are times when the FAQ acts as a Primary Source (iwhen ruling on topics not directly covered by the rules) and times where it isn't (see complaint #2). Claiming the FAQ is "official" gives a false sense of ethos that fuels many debates.

 

[glass]

If anyone has some other valid ones (i.e. not subject to debate and interpretation), I'd like to add them to this list.

What, exactly, does 'not subject to debate' mean? Anything can be (and around here, probably will be) debated.


glass.

 

[Mistwell]

What, exactly, does 'not subject to debate' mean? Anything can be (and around here, probably will be) debated.


glass.

I think you're wrong.

Oh wait....WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaahhhhhh!

 

[Felix]

Generally speaking: yes, the FAQ is reliable. It makes mistakes, but that's fairly well documented.

What you need to decide before you start using the FAQ is what the relationship between the FAQ and the PHB (or other core books) is. The FAQ does contradict the core books at times, and you need to decide beforehand which you are going to subjugate to the other.

For convienience's sake, I recommend using the FAQ.

Personally, I recommend using the core books, and turning to the FAQ when there are two equally valid arguments. This is more time-intensive.

 

[mvincent]

What, exactly, does 'not subject to debate' mean? Anything can be (and around here, probably will be) debated.

Many of the items that have been corrected in the FAQ have been clear, unambiguous errors. Usually if something is a genuine error (rather than a difference in opinion) it can be demonstrated fairly easily. I acknowledge that (when wrapped tightly in one's own opinion, as humans are wont to do) the difference between the two cannot always be seen. If one is unsure, I guess they could always ask.

The part of the FAQ that states "The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike." The rules do. "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." It doesn't get much more explicit than that. Obviously, the rest of the answer given based on this premise is flawed.

See now, this is an excellent example of someone reading some text one way, then being unable to read it a different way (and so assumes that any alternate reading must be an unambiguous error).

 

[Moon-Lancer]

-The part of the FAQ that states "The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t
use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike." The rules do. "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." It doesn't get much more explicit than that. Obviously, the rest of the answer given based on this premise is flawed.

Its not clear what this sentence is trying to say. Is it trying to say that all attacks are equal and none are offhand attacks (in a flurry) or is it saying that twf is illegal? isolated, its pretty definite what it means, but in its sentence structure, its very cryptic and mentions nothing of twf. when i read it, i think that its backing up the statment about being able to attack when the monks hands are full.

*edit*

 

[pawsplay]

-The part of the FAQ that states "The rules don’t come right out and say that a monk can’t
use an unarmed strike for an off-hand strike." The rules do. "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed." It doesn't get much more explicit than that. Obviously, the rest of the answer given based on this premise is flawed.

See, I think that's another way of stating that a monk has one weapon (their unarmed strike), and cannot, for instance, punch someone repeatedly and then use a headbutt as an off-hand attack. It also means that an off hand strike is not weaker, regardless of what body part is being described as the attack. I don't think it means that the off-hand rules cease to exist for a brief moment whenever a monk attacks.