free action to sheathe ?

[Hypersmurf]

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.

3.5 Main FAQ, 20/10/05, p39 (General Spells section):

Hardness applies to acid and sonic attacks. These
attacks deal normal damage both to creatures and to
objects, and thus would deal normal damage to an
animated object (less the effect of the hardness). You
would subtract 5 points for hardness from whatever
damage a Melf’s acid arrow spell deals to the
animated table in your example.

3.5 Main FAQ, 20/10/05, p53 (Monsters section):

Acid, sonic, and force attacks ignore hardness. Hardness
applies to cold, electricity, and fire attacks.

The PHB says to 'apply damage normally'. But the normal way to apply damage to something with hardness (whether it be an object, like a table, or a creature, like an animated table) is to subtract the hardness from the damage dealt.

So "normally" can be read in two ways, and the FAQ gives both of them in different sections as being the right way, despite the fact that they're mutually exclusive.

Am I 'wrong', or 'just plain lying', when I quote those two passages?

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.

No, it isn't. Check the most recent FAQ. Passages in red are new in this edition, passages in black existed in the previous version. You'll notice that, for example, the very first entry in the Feats section is new. The next three are old. The fifth is new. The sixth is old.

They're certainly not ordered by date of addition within the Feats section.

-Hyp.

 

[Anubis]

Well, it's not in red, but the part you pointed to saying that hardness applies is the same section in the previous FAQ that states that hardness doesn't apply. As such, since that change is the newest, the rule is thus changed so that hardness applies.

Of course, in the event that the change was a mistake, the simplest thing to do is just, you know, write and ask. I would say that since the section saying to apply hardness is newer than the other (I know because I had both FAQs and that section has changed), then the newest statement is the one that's applicable.

I did notice the format of the FAQ changed quite a bit since the previous version, though. It's possible that the format change is a work-in-progress. So I'll just e-mail and ask directly, no problem. I'll let you know the results. (In other words, if you find a contradiction, just ask for a clarification. They are human, after all. I'm guessing that it's a rule change, though, and they just forgot to update the other section. We'll see.)

[E-mail sent to Andy Collins to clarify which is correct.]

How hard was that? I'm guessing it's a rule change, but we'll see soon enough.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Well, it's not in red, but the part you pointed to saying that hardness applies is the same section in the previous FAQ that states that hardness doesn't apply. As such, since that change is the newest, the rule is thus changed so that hardness applies.

I'm not sure which FAQ you consider 'the previous' one, but the most recent one came out less than a week ago, and I've been using that example of contradiction for some months now.

-Hyp.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

I read that kind of thing as the Sage's wishlist of stuff he'd change if he could write the errata any way he liked. I'd accept its role as errata at the point at which it gets added to the errata document.

IIRC, this has happened a few times, where FAQ answers were eventually formalized as errata because the FAQ could convey a change that was coming from R&D but for which they didn't want to issue an errata document for, at least until they had worked out all the other errata for that book so they only needed to release a single document. So the FAQ was a kind of "sneak preview" of the eventual errata document, rather than the errata being derivative of the FAQ. I can't remember the occasions on which this happened, however.

 

[Anubis]

I'm not sure which FAQ you consider 'the previous' one, but the most recent one came out less than a week ago, and I've been using that example of contradiction for some months now.

-Hyp.

I just got the newest FAQ today. Up until you made your post, I was using the one immediately prior to that, and in that one, the rulings don't contradict. How you could use it for months when the change has only been around for a week or two is beyond me.

 

[Caliban]

I just got the newest FAQ today. Up until you made your post, I was using the one immediately prior to that, and in that one, the rulings don't contradict. How you could use it for months when the change has only been around for a week or two is beyond me.

Because the change hasn't only been around for a week or two, it's been around for about 8 months. The ruling about sonic/acid/force ignoring hardness has been in the FAQ since at least November of 2004 (earliest version of the FAQ I have that mentions it), while the contradictory ruling about them NOT ignoring hardness was added on January 28th of 2005.


You just haven't done a very good job of searching the FAQ, that's all.

 

[Anubis]

Um, unless they update it monthly, I had the most recent version except for this one, and I read it very carefully, and there was no contradictions. The version I had, the one prior to this, was from (IIRC) April or June. So again, unless they update it far more often than I thought . . . You get the idea.

Still, regardless, the previous version, one from within the last six months, had no contradictions, and the same passage from before has been changed.

When I get an answer, you all will be the first to know.

 

[Caliban]

Um, unless they update it monthly, I had the most recent version except for this one, and I read it very carefully, and there was no contradictions. The version I had, the one prior to this, was from (IIRC) April or June. So again, unless they update it far more often than I thought . . . You get the idea.

Still, regardless, the previous version, one from within the last six months, had no contradictions, and the same passage from before has been changed.

When I get an answer, you all will be the first to know.

You didn't search it carefully enough, because my 1/28/05 copy of the FAQ has the contradictory rulings. So you really should check your sources better.

Just checked, my 5/27/05 copy of the FAQ still has the contradictory posts, as does the most recent FAQ.

 

[Peter Gibbons]

Um, unless they update it monthly, I had the most recent version except for this one,

The most recent FAQ is dated 10/27/05. The FAQ immediately preceding that one is dated 9/28/05.

and I read it very carefully, and there was no contradictions. The version I had, the one prior to this, was from (IIRC) April or June. So again, unless they update it far more often than I thought . . .

Okay, I just checked my copy of the April FAQ, and you're...no surprise here...WRONG! It does include the contradiction.

You must not be a very good reader.

When I get an answer, you all will be the first to know.

Thanks, but frankly, I don't need an answer. The PHB rules are clear to me, so barring any errata (not FAQ edicts, but actual errata), that's the end of it.

 

[Caliban]

Thanks, but frankly, I don't need an answer. The PHB rules are clear to me, so barring any errata (not FAQ edicts, but actual errata), that's the end of it.

I don't think he was asking on your behalf in particular.