free action to sheathe ?

[Hypersmurf]

There is nothing in your little thing from the Errata stating that the FAQ can't be a primary source.

It does, however, state that the PHB is the primary source for rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions... which means that the FAQ isn't the primary source for those things. And that in the event of a discrepancy between the two, the PHB takes precedence.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

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

As much as I agree with Anubis (espcially the part about me being 100% right ), I see your point, too. FAQ really is part of teh Core Rules, though, but if you want to ignore it, go ahead. I also think it is fair game in this forum to argue whether or not an answer in the FAQ strays from the rules as written and is intended to be a clarification, rule change or is simply a mistake.

As for what is "offical," well, I dearly would love it if WotC followed their own rules about that, but they don't and they end up changing rules in the FAQ, which is offical. That's just the way it is. It's wrong, and should not be that way, but it is the reality.

 

[Artoomis]

It does, however, state that the PHB is the primary source for rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions... which means that the FAQ isn't the primary source for those things. And that in the event of a discrepancy between the two, the PHB takes precedence.

-Hyp.

You know, I wish it were so, but WotC itself does not seem to really see it that way. Not , at least, judging by the FAQ entries.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

FAQ really is part of teh Core Rules, though,

That's just the point, though; it isn't part of the Core Rules. The Core rules comprise the PHB, the DMG, and the MM.

Nothing. Else.

 

[Infiniti2000]

That's just the point, though; it isn't part of the Core Rules. The Core rules comprise the PHB, the DMG, and the MM.

Nothing. Else.

Not the errata of said three materials?

The FAQ is nothing more than a set of Official House Rules, and error-prone ones at that.

 

[Anubis]

Heh, if the FAQ isn't core, then neither is the errata. You can't have it both ways, you know.

I presume that the Rules forum is for all official rules, NOT just core rules. If it were only core rules, then 99% of the topics here wouldn't exist.

 

[Len]

Heh, if the FAQ isn't core, then neither is the errata. You can't have it both ways, you know.

They're not the same. The Errata was published to correct errors in the rules, and it appears to have undergone some sort of editing process. All of the errata make sense to me.

The FAQ is more like some house rules Skip and Andy decided to make up, with a bunch of contradictory rulings from custserv thrown in. Plus some sensible clarifications of the actual rules of D&D, but it's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

My group uses the Errata as core rules, and the FAQ for an occasional laugh.

I presume that the Rules forum is for all official rules, NOT just core rules. If it were only core rules, then 99% of the topics here wouldn't exist.

Yes, this is the forum to discuss all the rules. But you must keep in mind that many of the rules are optional and not used by everyone. Not all groups use the FAQ rules, just as not all groups use the Complete books or the Eberron books.

 

[irdeggman]

Here is a prime example of where the FAQ is an errata source:

All 3.5 rules.

The DMG does not state that prestige classes do not count towards multiclass penalties. (It did in 3.0).

The FAQ came out stating this was wrong (i.e. the DMG) and that they shouldn't count towards multiclass penalties.

The SRD was modifed (somewhere it got slipped in we haven't been able to figure out when) to include the "errata from the FAQ".

At no time has the "Official" errata been updated to reflect this change/correction.

I have heard, but not confirmed this to be true, that the leather bound DMG has had this text inserted to make the correction.

 

[Caliban]

Here is a prime example of where the FAQ is an errata source:

All 3.5 rules.

The DMG does not state that prestige classes do not count towards multiclass penalties. (It did in 3.0).

The FAQ came out stating this was wrong (i.e. the DMG) and that they shouldn't count towards multiclass penalties.

The SRD was modifed (somewhere it got slipped in we haven't been able to figure out when) to include the "errata from the FAQ".

At no time has the "Official" errata been updated to reflect this change/correction.

I have heard, but not confirmed this to be true, that the leather bound DMG has had this text inserted to make the correction.

I have the leatherbound DMG, it does have the correction in it.

 

[Iku Rex]

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.

erratum: An error in printing or writing, especially such an error noted in a list of corrections and bound into a book. (dictionary.com)

Fact: The FAQ is designated as official by the proper authority (WotC).
Fact: The FAQ file contains corrections to errors in the rules.

Please explain to me why a document containing official corrections to the rules from the game's publisher can't be considered "an official errata file".

(As for this particular issue, I'd go with "an unintentional error when explaining a rule", using Artoomis' words.)