free action to sheathe ?

[Anubis]

irdeggman, Caliban, thank you. I'd say that cements the case of the FAQ being counted as errata.

I would say the only time the errata has more weight than the FAQ is when there is a direct contradiction between the two. Since there are no such circumstances, though, that's why I consider them to have equal weight.

Some might thus say that the errata and FAQ are both core, in that case. There is plenty of proof to that conclusion, and none to the contrary, so I'd say it's a safe bet. I'm not a betting man and I'd still bet the house on that one.

 

[Caliban]

irdeggman, Caliban, thank you. I'd say that cements the case of the FAQ being counted as errata.

Well, I'd call it "unofficial errata". It's official for clarifications, unofficial for errata (since that's not the stated purpose of the FAQ).

I would say the only time the errata has more weight than the FAQ is when there is a direct contradiction between the two. Since there are no such circumstances, though, that's why I consider them to have equal weight.

I give the FAQ a lot less weight than the errata, considering the number of outright contradictions in the FAQ.

Some might thus say that the errata and FAQ are both core, in that case. There is plenty of proof to that conclusion, and none to the contrary, so I'd say it's a safe bet. I'm not a betting man and I'd still bet the house on that one.

The only way that you can say that there is no proof to the contrary is if you choose to ignore that proof.

I use the FAQ in it's capacity as a clarification document, and even then it doesn't overrule my personal intepretation unless I feel that there is some ambiguity in the original rule.

I accept it's role as a form of Errata only when it's clearly stated in the FAQ answer that the Sage knows he is changing the rule.

So, in my view, the idea that you can sheathe a weapon as a free action while moving if you have a +1 BAB is by no means official. It's just a side comment in the FAQ that happens to be wrong.

 

[RedShirtNo5]

Last Month's Discussion

 

[Artoomis]

To further support my position on FAQ as source for rule chages (an errata source):

Do you have questions about the D&D game rules? Download the official FAQ that best suits your needs. Each FAQ is presented in PDF format so that you can download it, print it, and take it to your game. They feature a date code in the footer so you can always be sure that you have the most current version. (These game rule FAQs do not cover errata found in the errata documents.)

Note that the only errata NOT found in the FAQ is that already posted in errata documents - WotC is letting us know they will use the FAQ as a souce for errata NOT found in the errata documents. And they do this. The problem, of course, is that they do not clearly label when a statement is to be considerd errata and when it is not.

Time for a new thread & poll, I think...

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

Question... Does the SRD hold the same weight as the PHB? Meaning, are they one in the same? Are they equal primary sources for rules?

Just because a (new) rule was added to the SRD, and that "rule" happened to be located in the FAQ first, I don't see how you can say the FAQ is now an errata source? They are totally seperate entities, the FAQ and SRD (and errata). The way I see it (and please correct me if I am wrong or even add your two cents in if you have a different opinion):

SRD = primary source and is in all ways equal to the PHB
errata = official rules changes
FAQ = clarifications as to the "intent" of the rules

When a new printing of the PHB is made (or the SRD is updated), whatever rules are added/deleted/changed really has nothing to do with the errata or FAQ. The errata and FAQ apply to the current rules. So, if the SRD was updated with something that happens to be in the FAQ, all that is is redundancy.

 

[Artoomis]

see discussion of FAQ as errata

 

[Anubis]

Personally, I only reference the FAQ when I have a question about the rules. I have yet to see any contradictions in the FAQ, meaning whatever topic was contradicted was already clear to me.

In such cases, though, I'd say that the most recently published stuff in the FAQ is the most accurate. I doubt contradictions were published simultaneously.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Personally, I only reference the FAQ when I have a question about the rules. I have yet to see any contradictions in the FAQ, meaning whatever topic was contradicted was already clear to me.

In such cases, though, I'd say that the most recently published stuff in the FAQ is the most accurate. I doubt contradictions were published simultaneously.

The best example in the FAQ at the moment - do a search in the PDF on 'sonic' - is that on one page, it says "Acid and Sonic damage ignore hardness", and on another, it says "Hardness applies to Acid and Sonic damage".

Since the entries don't have a date beside them, how does one know which answer was published most recently?

-Hyp.

 

[irdeggman]

Question... Does the SRD hold the same weight as the PHB? Meaning, are they one in the same? Are they equal primary sources for rules?

Just because a (new) rule was added to the SRD, and that "rule" happened to be located in the FAQ first, I don't see how you can say the FAQ is now an errata source? They are totally seperate entities, the FAQ and SRD (and errata). The way I see it (and please correct me if I am wrong or even add your two cents in if you have a different opinion):

Yes that is how it should work. What I was stating (or attempting to state) is that the FAQ(i.e. Sage Advice) actually made the change in this case and the SRD followed it up and so did the leather bound printing of the DMG. Note also that there is still no update to the DMG errata to cover this change made in printings.

SRD = primary source and is in all ways equal to the PHB
errata = official rules changes
FAQ = clarifications as to the "intent" of the rules

In most logical cases this makes sense but in the world of WotC it doesn't.

Examples of things that I consider rules but are not including in the SRD:


1. DMG includes text on designing Prestige Classes that states (paraphrased) that prerequisites should be set that a character must be at least 5th level in order to qualify for a PrCl. There is no such text in the SRD. In fact the entire sectin on designing PrCl is missing from the SRD IIRC.

2. The description of Skill Focus in the PHB includes things considered "color" that touch on actual rules intent (IMO) concerning having a special knack with that skill where the SRD does not which leads one to believe that SF is more "natural" than "learned".

These are 2 that come off the top of my head, i'm pretty certain there are other examples that could be used.

When a new printing of the PHB is made (or the SRD is updated), whatever rules are added/deleted/changed really has nothing to do with the errata or FAQ. The errata and FAQ apply to the current rules. So, if the SRD was updated with something that happens to be in the FAQ, all that is is redundancy.

This is the one that causes the most problems since it only a new printing and not a revision of the rules.

In the past WotC has posted changes for different printings (see d20 Star Wars revised rules differences between 1st and 2nd printings) that functions like errata. This apparently did not occur with the 3.5 DMG, the SRD and the new leather bound 3.5 DMG.

In general I see the books as higher tier than the SRD, unfortunately WotC has been extremely arbitrary in how it handles these things, well at least IMO. So what that does is leave us poor users with trying to piece together different sources to come up with what the "real" rules should be. That is why the FAQ play an important and vital role IMO - they fill these gaps in rational judgment that WotC has been using.

 

[Anubis]

Well, I'm not sure why the question was even asked about sonic and acid damage. The PH pretty clearly states that sonic and acid ignore hardness, as it says, word-for-word, to apply damage normally.

Of course, the FAQ can change that. If the examples you stated are in the same subsection of the FAQ, then the one furthest down is the most recent. Each subsection, as updated, is ordered from least to most recent. Unfortunately, if the two answers are given in two different subsections, then it's hard telling which one came first.

. . . Well, time to go look! . . .

Edit: I just checked the FAQ, and I don't see anything in there saying that acid and sonic don't ignore hardness. In fact, on several occasions, it states explicitly in no uncertain terms that sonic, acid, and force damage all ignore hardness. So I dunno who originally claimed that the FAQ contradicts itself, but they were either wrong or just plain lying in order to hurt the FAQ's credibility. All I know is that I just did searches for hardness, sonic, and acid, and it always says that such attacks ignore hardness.