free action to sheathe ?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The FAQ is written by the game designers

Is written by one game designer - and one who hasn't been involved in every single project.

and is effectively an extension of the product.

And is intended as a reference for answering rules questions - which means it is inherently dependent upon the rules. If it gets the rules wrong, then it is not a useful reference for answering rules questions.

The errata is there to fix typos more than anything else.

And to indicate shifts in design decisions:

Page 11: Scout’s Class Skills
Add Disable Device to the scout’s list of class skills. (This addition fits with the flavor of the class.)

Page 12: Skirmish (class feature)
The second sentence of the skirmish class feature should read as follows (new text indicated in red): She deals an extra 1d6 points of damage on all attacks she makes during any round in which she moves at least 10 feet away from where she was at the start of her turn. The extra damage applies only to attacks made after the scout has moved at least 10 feet. The skirmish ability cannot be used while mounted. This update should be made wherever the skirmish ability description is presented (see also pages 31, 56, and 177).

Both are valid.

But one is more valid than the other.

Or do you suddenly have more say than the writers of the game?

Honestly? Yes, I do - when I'm the DM. And as the DM, I need to know what the rules actually say, and how they all hang together, before I go mucking about with them with House Rules. Accordingly, when the FAQ starts talking about how things work - but doesn't tie its statements back to the actual rules - it becomes less useful to me.

Explanations of when to apply the Practiced Spellcaster feat's benefit? Well written and useful.

Explanations of how to apply acid and sonic damage to objects? Internally contradictory, and not useful.

Explanation of how long it takes to sheathe a weapon? Contradicts the actual rules without proposing or calling out a house rule, and not useful.

They designed it, they wrote it, they playtested it.

Or, rather, Andy Collins dealt with some of it personally.

I'd say their word is law as far as "official" sources go.

And I'd say that you're wrong - because there's an official source that says that you're wrong.

You can't really contest official sources.

Yes, you can - because the official sources tell us the manner in which to contest them.

 

[diaglo]

Yes, you can - because the official sources tell us the manner in which to contest them.

in full agreement.

 

[glass]

Yes it does. The FAQ is written by the game designers and is effectively an extension of the product. The errata is there to fix typos more than anything else. Both are valid.

You are of course free to give the FAQ as much weight as you feel it deserves. In my case, that is basically none, in your case it is apparently more. That doesn't alter the fact that the errata* is the only thing that can overrule the printed books.

Or do you suddenly have more say than the writers of the game? They designed it, they wrote it, they playtested it. I'd say their word is law as far as "official" sources go.

Do you? These mythical designers prsumably also wrong the errata rules which you discount so easily.

FWIW, things don't always work as there designers intended. Have you ever used a computer? Has it ever crashed? Do you think the designers intended it to crash? FWIW, I trust my ability to interpret the rules (or Hyp's, or Patryn's) a lot more than I trust Andy Collins's.

When people ask for the official rule, though, now we can safely say you can draw OR sheath for free as part of a move. You can't really contest official sources.

'Official sources' is meaningless. There are the RAW, and there are houserules, and in this forum we discuss the former.

If you want to do differently, house rule it at your table.

Right back at ya!


glass.

* more accurately, the corrections to the errata.

 

[Artoomis]

Errata vs. FAQ

First, to glass: We do NOT exclusively discuss RAW in this forum. We discuss anything related to the rules, including the FAQ, and including discussion of when a rule is "official" - which may or may not include the FAQ depending upion your point of view.

About the only thing off-limits is when actually making up new rules - that is, house rules. This is NOT the same as a rules interpretation.

As for errata vs. FAQ - I'm afraid that the FAQ acts as a virtual errata for WotC, not just interpretations. This is not according the their own original rules, but it's what has happened over the years. Some items from the FAQ (never published in errata) made it into the latest printing of the DMG/PHB. Sorry, but I cannot think of an example off-hand but I have actually seen at least one example of this.

The result is that it's a little hard, sometimes, to figure out if a particular FAQ item is:

1. An official clarification/interpretation.
2. Merely intended as good Advice.
3. An offical, actual rules change.

Or some combination of all three - including, possibly, an unintentional error when explaining a rule.

 

[Artoomis]

You are of course free to give the FAQ as much weight as you feel it deserves. In my case, that is basically none, in your case it is apparently more. That doesn't alter the fact that the errata* is the only thing that can overrule the printed books.

Regrettably, that's just not trrue - even though it should be true.

...Official sources' is meaningless. There are the RAW, and there are houserules, and in this forum we discuss the former.Right back at ya!

Not true. There is the RAW and the FAQ and we certainly discuss both in this forum - as well as how one should use the rules regardless of precisely how they are written. Sometimes we have a discussion where we want to look at the FAQ and decide in an entry is at odd with the RAW (including errata), and that's a legitimate discussion, but not every thread is only about RAW.

Finally, following thw FAQ is most certainly NOT a "house rule" even if at variance from the rules as written. the FAQ is an official source, and so it is permissiable to follow it and NOT be using "house rules" - in fact, it is appropriate to do so and have those converstitons here in the rules forum and NOT in the house rules forum.

 

[Deset Gled]

The result is that it's a little hard, sometimes, to figure out if a particular FAQ item is:

1. An official clarification/interpretation.
2. Merely intended as good Advice.
3. An offical, actual rules change.

Or some combination of all three - including, possibly, an unintentional error when explaining a rule.

The FAQ can be 1 or 2, or the unnumbered 4 (unintentional error), but not 3.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.
...
The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions.

I think this ruling falls under category 4.

 

[Artoomis]

The FAQ can be 1 or 2, or the unnumbered 4 (unintentional error), but not 3.

I wish. That's the way the FAQ started, but WotC broke their own rules and has actually published offical rules changes in the fAQ.

I do agree that this one likely is an unitentional error.

It equally could be an assumption that creates a rule "clarification" - which is how some rules CHANGES get published in the FAQ.

 

[Deset Gled]

I wish. That's the way the FAQ started, but WotC broke their own rules and has actually published offical rules changes in the fAQ.

What part of

Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.

is unclear about how to handle that situation? In 3.0, you point is arguable. In 3.5, it isn't.

 

[Anubis]

Deset Gled, glass, you two need to stop your nonsense. Seriously. Whether you like it or not, this is the Rules forum, and the FAQ is official. The designers wrote it and their word is law. You say you can contest that when you're the DM? Of course you can! That's called a house rule.

As far as the official rules go, for purposes of the Rules forum, the FAQ and the Errata are equal. There is nothing in your little thing from the Errata stating that the FAQ can't be a primary source. Seeing as the FAQ is more up-to-date than the Errata, that means Artoomis is 100% right. The FAQ is basically another Errata form. So give it up already.

If you want to argue against the FAQ, take it to House Rules. They're official and there's nothing you can really do to change that.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Deset Gled, glass, you two need to stop your nonsense. Seriously. Whether you like it or not, this is the Rules forum, and the FAQ is official.

... but not CORE. So, you're still wrong - and someone needs a lollipop.