FAQ Errors

[GorTeX]

For me, the big mistake in the FAQ is the entry on Mithral armor being treaded as one category lighter for all purposes...and even admits that this is not what the DMG says.
They just use it because it's a simpler answer than the RAW.

 

[Felix]

With all due respect, this is just semantics.

Ok, but HP and hardness need to be dependent on what the sword is: one-handed or two-handed, and not how the weapon is wielded. That's what the weapon size categories in the PHB do and the FAQ discards that convention by saying, "it doesn't matter what a sword is, only how it's wielded". But that's problematic when game mechanics are dependent upon the size weapon you're holding.

Right, but this post is very one-sided. And maybe that is what you are trying to do.

If it turns out there are only 4 mistakes in the FAQ, then I think this one-sided thread will go to show that the FAQ is actually fairly accurate. If that's the case then I'll change my mind; similar to how I changed my mind in the Sunder thread.

So let's see how many mistakes we compile first, eh?

 

[Legildur]

So let's see how many mistakes we compile first, eh?

There is a slight problem with that. It depends on which version you are looking at. Some of the errors from the earlier FAQs were (eventually) corrected, but did nothing for clarity in the meantime. For some reason it seems that new entries to the FAQ take less time to appear than what it takes to rectify any errors.

Also, would you call an answer creating new rules or changes existing rules (no matter how sensible) an error? (given that the FAQ is only meant to provide clarification of existing rules and the errata is meant to be the document that creates new rules or changes existing rules).

I will say that I rely to a degree on the FAQ for the interpretation of some rules, but I lack faith in the document as the final word because of some of these issues.

 

[Felix]

It depends on which version you are looking at.

I'll take all errors from all versions, properly cited.

Also, would you call an answer creating new rules or changes existing rules (no matter how sensible) an error?

Yes. The FAQ clarifies, but does not legislate. When it legislates it has stepped beyond its purview.

 

[Pinotage]

Well, I quite like the FAQ. Not perfect, but good enough for the casual gamer. In any event, one of the more recent Star Wars updates on the WotC site mentioned the order of preference for rules 'importance' and it went something like - Errata, Two Other Things, FAQ, Website. At least WotC appear to understand what is more important.

Pinotage

 

[Deset Gled]

Well, I quite like the FAQ. Not perfect, but good enough for the casual gamer. In any event, one of the more recent Star Wars updates on the WotC site mentioned the order of preference for rules 'importance' and it went something like - Errata, Two Other Things, FAQ, Website. At least WotC appear to understand what is more important.

Pinotage

Can you post a link to that? One of the problems that I have with such a statement is that the Primary Source Rule does not allow for an "order of importance". It only allows for Errata to change rules, and states that everything else is simply a mistake, regardless of where it came from.

 

[mvincent]

Well, I quite like the FAQ. Not perfect, but good enough for the casual gamer.

Ditto. I like the FAQ. If something can be viewed as open to interpretation, then it is good to have an answer. If there was no question about it (or if you have no question about it), then you don't need to consult the FAQ in the first place. Blatantly contradictory stuff is typically pointed out and corrected anyways (the gauntlet thing will most likely be fixed in the next edition).

Also, different wording on some answers could've possibly be used to make them less debated (but many of us can figure out the writer's intent, even if unfortunate wording was used). Examples:
1) The Two-handed vs. one-handed thing was simply used to illustrate that you don't get 1 1/2 strength damage when using a two-handed weapon in one hand (which seems reasonable). Everyone already knew that it wasn't meant to imply that the weapon's HP changed.
2) The mithral answer was simply meant to settle the long debated issue of proficiency.

However, one answer that contradicts RAW (and will not likely be corrected) is from the 3.0 FAQ (and is still used):
"You can’t make time stop persistent. (Its duration is effectively instantaneous for purposes of the Persistent Spell feat.)"

Now, although I completely agree with the ruling, it does technically alter RAW (i.e. RAW lists a duration for time stop, and that duration is not instantaneous, and so it would not be treated as instantaneous for things like dispel magic and such).

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think it is only fair that we also post where the FAQ is not contrary to the RAW (or itself for that matter). And then maybe we can tally up the "suitable answers" vs. "contradicting ones". Seems like the only right thing to do. Best to show both sides. Just because a document has a couple errors, doesn't mean the entire thing is wrong.

I think the other reason a lot of people don't like the FAQ is because when it clarifies a rule, a lot of times it is not the answer the person was looking for. So it must be "wrong".

BINGO.

You don't agree with the stated intention of this thread. That's fine - start a new thread to discuss issues which are important to you.

Don't threadcrap in this one please.

 

[Pinotage]

Can you post a link to that? One of the problems that I have with such a statement is that the Primary Source Rule does not allow for an "order of importance". It only allows for Errata to change rules, and states that everything else is simply a mistake, regardless of where it came from.

Star Wars Miniatures Rules

This was for Star Wars Miniatures only and in specific relation to 'card' text. I think it's interesting though. If gives me the belief that D&D developers feel the same way.

Pinotage

 

[glass]

1) The Two-handed vs. one-handed thing was simply used to illustrate that you don't get 1 1/2 strength damage when using a two-handed weapon in one hand (which seems reasonable). Everyone already knew that it wasn't meant to imply that the weapon's HP changed.

I most certainly didn't know that! In fact, I know the opposite: if you are somehow using a 2H weapon in one hand, then you get 1.5 x Str bonus and 2-for-1 PA (uless the ability that is allowing you to use it in one hand overrides this -which the lance's special ability doesn't).


glass.