Primitive Screwhead
First Post
"people still felt the previous answer I got was vague"
Semantically speaking.. this statement is wrong. I don't feel your previous answer was vague... I know is it vague.
Its like the sky being blue...
And...yet again you ask a vague question with good intentions to get a good answer.. and receive an equally vague answer. Probably with just as many good intentions from thier end.
Instead of Coredump's well semantically well formed suggestion upthread, you ask :
"Is the FAQ also a source of rules changes and errata?"
I think everyone here will agree that the FAQ is a source of rules changes and errata.
As is Monte Cook's boards, and this board, and emails to Cust Serv, and Chain Mail replies in the Dragon Mag, and etc....
Being a source of rulings has little, if anything, to do with taking precedence..aka being 'official'.
What you did not ask was whether the FAQ is considered to take precedence over the rulings previously published.
The answer to that, IMHO, is no. The FAQ does not have the 'officialness' to be considered as suplanting previous published rules. Once a FAQ answer has been ratified as Errata, or snuck into a new printing of the PHB.. then the ruling becomes RAW.
If WOTC/Cust Serv were to state that the FAQ rulings do indeed take precedence over previous published rules.. then hopefully they have an answer to the Acid/Sonic conflict or any other misrepresentation that has snuck into the document via minimal scrutiny and/or poor editing.
Methinks you are arguing a completely different point based on the assumption of 'Official', from which I can imagine a you gain a fair amount of frustration
{edit : Patryn types faster than I do }
Notice the distinction in the above 'different Cust Serv response' that specifically addresses precedence of rulings. Alot less vague than the response from your query...
Semantically speaking.. this statement is wrong. I don't feel your previous answer was vague... I know is it vague.
Its like the sky being blue...
And...yet again you ask a vague question with good intentions to get a good answer.. and receive an equally vague answer. Probably with just as many good intentions from thier end.
Instead of Coredump's well semantically well formed suggestion upthread, you ask :
"Is the FAQ also a source of rules changes and errata?"
I think everyone here will agree that the FAQ is a source of rules changes and errata.
As is Monte Cook's boards, and this board, and emails to Cust Serv, and Chain Mail replies in the Dragon Mag, and etc....
Being a source of rulings has little, if anything, to do with taking precedence..aka being 'official'.
What you did not ask was whether the FAQ is considered to take precedence over the rulings previously published.
The answer to that, IMHO, is no. The FAQ does not have the 'officialness' to be considered as suplanting previous published rules. Once a FAQ answer has been ratified as Errata, or snuck into a new printing of the PHB.. then the ruling becomes RAW.
If WOTC/Cust Serv were to state that the FAQ rulings do indeed take precedence over previous published rules.. then hopefully they have an answer to the Acid/Sonic conflict or any other misrepresentation that has snuck into the document via minimal scrutiny and/or poor editing.
Methinks you are arguing a completely different point based on the assumption of 'Official', from which I can imagine a you gain a fair amount of frustration
{edit : Patryn types faster than I do
}Notice the distinction in the above 'different Cust Serv response' that specifically addresses precedence of rulings. Alot less vague than the response from your query...
Last edited:
