FAQ Errors

[mvincent]

I most certainly didn't know that!

To clarify: you didn't know that the FAQ entry wasn't meant to imply that the weapon's HP changed?

if you are somehow using a 2H weapon in one hand, then you get 1.5 x Str bonus and 2-for-1 PA

This has been debated before (long before the FAQ entry). I have no wish to do so again here, but your statements have certainly helped illustrate a point. Thank you.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Wow, only 4 places where the FAQ either contradicts itself or is contradicotry to the RAW (though I still don't agree that the Sunder ruling in FAQ is incorrect). Four entries out of what? 50? 100? I hardly see how this shows the entire FAQ should be ignored because of a handful of errors.

 

[XCorvis]

2. The FAQ contradicts itself as to provocation of an AoO when standing up from prone as a free action using Tumble. (version 2/25/05)

• pp 24-25 that standing up as a free action with a DC 35 Tumble check provokes an attack of opportunity

• pp 26-27 states that standing up as a free action with a DC 35 Tumble check does not provoke an attack of opportunity

That is a very outdated FAQ entry. It's been over 17 months! This has been corrected and is no longer in the current FAQ. It was probably removed in the very next version. A DC 35 Tumble check to stand from prone as a free action DOES provoke an AoO.

4. The FAQ states that weapon categories (light, one-handed, two-handed) are dependent upon how the weapon is wielded. (version 6/21/06)

• pp 26-27 states: "A medium character using a medium longsword in two hands is using a 'two-handed' weapon." This means that a sword's HP and hardness change depenedent upon how many hands are upon the hilt.

This is nonsensical. "Two-handed" is not a weapon size in 3.5e, it is a state. A medium longsword is always medium. It clearly explains this in the FAQ entry.

When the combat rules speak of “two-handed” weapons, they’re referring to how the weapon is being used. A Medium character using a Medium longsword in two hands is using a
“two-handed” weapon. The same character using a Medium lance in one hand while mounted is using a one-handed weapon.

A weapon's HP depend on its size and its hardness depends on the material.

Edit: Fixed typo.

 

[XCorvis]

Wow, only 4 places where the FAQ either contradicts itself or is contradicotry to the RAW (though I still don't agree that the Sunder ruling in FAQ is incorrect). Four entries out of what? 50? 100? I hardly see how this shows the entire FAQ should be ignored because of a handful of errors.

One place now (#3), or two if you consider the sunder ruling incorrect. Really blatant errors (like the monk/gauntlet thing) will get fixed in the next version anyway, so let's split the difference and count item #1 as half an error.

And let's average 6 answers per page for about 70 pages of FAQ, or about 420 entries. Probably more. Personally, I think the Sage does all right...

 

[mvincent]

Personally, I think the Sage does all right...

Considering he is called upon to make calls about issues that people may be sharply divided on, it should not be surprising that there may be people that are unhappy with his answers.

If he somehow made everyone happy, I doubt that he'd be doing his job correctly.

Still, I have no problem with the goal of finding objective errors in the FAQ (or in the core rules for that matter).

 

[Felix]

Four entries out of what? 50? 100?

And with the number of posts in this thread complaining or arguing against the stated intention of the thread, you'd think that this thread were in praise of the FAQ.

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.

Thank you.

 

[mvincent]

And with the number of posts in this thread complaining or arguing against the stated intention of the thread, you'd think that this thread were in praise of the FAQ.

The natural inclination on most boards seems to be to debate or correct others (present company included). So if your intent is to collect FAQ errors, you may do better with a thread entitled "In praise of the FAQ" or somesuch.

I'm certain there are others that feel as you do (in fact, I think FAQ derision might be the reason for the "Please remain civil, folks" sticky thread), you just need the right bait to draw them out. The below statements might suffice:

"Many of the contested FAQ rulings have all been discussed before in detail. Many people had many different valid interpretations. The FAQ was intended to resolve such debates though by selecting one single option. Whether one decides to agrees with or follow the FAQ (or even the core rules) it is entirely up to them, but mostly irrelevant. The FAQ is certainly more official than our own conjecture, and is official enough to be considered part of the rules (like any other supplement).

Arguing against the FAQ is silly, and is akin to railing against the core rules themselves. If the FAQ is legitimately in error, one normally writes in to call it to their attention (same with the core rules). This has been done before, and a recent error in the FAQ was corrected. However, if it is a simple matter of interpretation, it will probably not be corrected.

I’m sure that if the FAQ ruled the other way on some of these contested rulings, we would still have people arguing the other side. You just can’t please everyone in these debatable issues. But by deprecating the FAQ, you are needlessly propagating the same old debates that the FAQ was intended to resolve.

When people ask questions here, the knowledgeable ones among us try to give them a FAQ reference if available (that is what it’s for), then a personal preference if we must.

To do otherwise does a disservice to this board: it is biased, unfair to the person asking the question, and disregards the whole point of the FAQ."

 

[Fieari]

Wow, Mvincent... are you a regualar player of Troll: The Provoking? (I hope not) You'd probably be scarily good at it... yikes!

 

[Legildur]

LOL! I'm with Fieari on this one.

Arguing against the FAQ is silly, and is akin to railing against the core rules themselves...

Except, of course, where it contradicts said core rules (published in the core rule books).

 

[glass]

To clarify: you didn't know that the FAQ entry wasn't meant to imply that the weapon's HP changed?

No, as was obvious from my very next sentance, I didn't 'know' that a 2H weapon used in one hand only gets 1x Str bonus, because it doesn't. But since you mention it, I have no doubt they didn't think about weapon hp at all. If they had have done, the would have thought again about the whole nonsense entry (as apprently they are now doing).

This has been debated before (long before the FAQ entry). I have no wish to do so again here, but your statements have certainly helped illustrate a point. Thank you.

And yet you are debating it again here.

And, what point have I illustrated exactly? That the FAQ contradicts the PHB and you're OK with that? Good for you, but I reserve the right not to be OK with it!


glass.