free action to sheathe ?

[Coredump]

The biggest problem with the FAQ, is that it never states when it is changing a rule, it just says things that are wrong, and we have to choose, is the FAQ wrong, or are they trying to change a rule?

flippant answers, like the Sheathe on the move one, just underscore this. I would have a different feeling if it said "Though left out of the PHB, you can also sheathe a weapon while moving." But they (actually 'he') doesn't.

I have little faith that the Sage knows when he is contradicting the rules, and he gives little indication that he knows.

 

[Anubis]

I did read it very carefully, and you saying that the early 2005 FAQs state this are just plain lying. Sorry, but the FAQ I had from early 2005 is very specific, stating everywhere that acid, sonic, and force attacks ignore hardness. Several different times, in fact.

Still, I e-mailed Andy Collins, and here is the answer:


This is an unfortunate example of an old misinterpretation lingering far too
long. Thanks for catching the reference; I'll make sure it's fixed in later
publications of the FAQ.

The basic rule for hardness appears under the Hardness entry on page 165 in
the PH: "Whenever an object takes damage, subtract its hardness from the
damage."

This means, very simply, that hardness applies to all types of damage unless
specifically stated otherwise by the effect.

(A sentence in the next paragraph is sometimes misinterpreted to suggest
that hardness doesn¹t apply to acid and sonic damage; in fact, the phrase
³apply [damage] normally after a successful hit² simply means that the
damage isn¹t halved or quartered, as other energy damage is.)

--
Andy Collins
RPG Developer
Wizards of the Coast R&D


On 10/23/05 4:58 PM, "Brandon Harwell" <brandon_harwell@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hello. I've been reading the FAQs regarding the subject of whether or not
> hardness applies to acid, sonic, and force damage. The book seems pretty
> clear (to me) that acid, sonic, and force effects ignore hardness, and the
> last FAQ confirmed this. The new FAQ, however, reverses this decision in
> one place (page 39 of the FAQ) and keeps the confirmation in another place
> (page 53).
>
> Which ruling is correct? Has the rule been changed so that hardness applies
> to everything, or is that particular section a typo (meaning such attacks
> ignore hardness)? Thank you for your time.


So there you go. Hardness is applied across the board. Oh, and whether you like it or not, the FAQ is 100% official in every way, including rules changes and errata. Here is my response from WotC regarding these isssues:


Response (Chris L.) 10/24/2005 03:11 PM
The reference, under the kyton on page 53, is incorrect.

Yes, everything in the FAQ is meant to be official.

I hope this information is useful.
Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Chris L.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/24/2005 03:07 PM
Well, on page 39, the entry states that hardness applies to acid, sonic, and force effects; On page 53, the entry states that acid, sonic, and force effects ignore hardness. Based on your previous answer, can I take that to mean the entry on page 53 is in error from a previous ruling and that hardness does indeed apply to acid, sonic, and force effects?

Oh, and a clarification of my first question. Does your response mean that actual rules changes in the FAQ are official as well and that there are instances of errata in it?
Response (Chris L.) 10/24/2005 02:29 PM
Thank you for contacting us.
1. Absolutely, the FAQ is considered to be a log of official rules clarifications. It is considered to be official.

2. The confusion may be with regards to the differences between Hardness and Damage Reduction? All damage is reduced by hardness, while some aren't reduced by damage reduction. Let me know if this is the question. If it isn't, could you be more specific about which entry you're referring to on page 53. Thank you for your patience.

I hope this information is useful.
Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Chris L.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/23/2005 05:16 PM
I have two questions.

1. Does the D&D Rules FAQ carry as much weight as the errata? Several rules changes have been implemented through the FAQ, and the errata is no longer being updated, leading me to believe the FAQ is for clarifications and changes. As such, is all the material in the FAQ official, just as if errata had been issued?

2. Regarding the FAQ, there is a contradiction. Previously, the FAQ confirmed that sonic, acid, and force attacks ignored hardness. In the newest FAQ, however, page 39 reverses that ruling (which now states that hardness applies to sonic, acid, and force attacks) while page 53 still upholds the previous ruling that such attacks all ignored hardness. Which is correct?

Thank you for your time.


So that's pretty much the end of it. It's stated, in no uncertain terms, that every in the FAQ is official, including changes and errata.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I did read it very carefully, and you saying that the early 2005 FAQs state this are just plain lying.

Please refrain from accusing other posters of lying. Nobody is manufacturing evidence to discredit you.

People with different printings of the 3E PHB, for example, will find that changes exist from one to the next that are never mentioned in the errata documents. That doesn't mean that someone who quotes from the first printing is lying to the person with the second printing.

Such accusations are offensive and uncivilised.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Anubis]

Offensive? What about their implications that I don't know how to read? When people go after me, I tend to return the favor. If they say such things to me, I have no inclination to respond politely. You really should apply what you say to all people involved, Hypersmurf.

Not that it matters. The issue is resolved. WotC has spoken, and as far as "Rules" go, their (WotC) word is the law. All opposers can house rule whatever they like.

 

[Caliban]

Offensive? What about their implications that I don't know how to read?

It's not an implication. You have demonstrated that you don't. Tell you what, give me the date of the earlier FAQ you are using, and I'll tell you on what pages the contradictory answers can be found.

When people go after me, I tend to return the favor.

The problem is that you don't wait for people to go after you. You bring it on yourself by the way you dismiss anyone who disagrees with you, or ignore any evidence that contradicts your viewpoints.

You've already earned a 3-day ban once because of this behavior, and it looks like you are headed toward another one.

I'm not a moderator, so please don't consider this a threat or anything like it. Just giving you a friendly heads up.

 

[Anubis]

double post

 

[Anubis]

I would except after someone pointed out there was a new FAQ, I downloaded it. I don't have the old one now. All I know is that it was from early 2005 because I downloaded it shortly before starting my newest campaign.

As far as that FAQ goes, I read it perfectly right. The exact passages you all are quoting (within the same questions no less) were answered differently. Specifically, the question and answer on page 39. The question was this one:

Many animated objects have hardness scores. What
affect, if any, will an animated object’s hardness have on
spells used against the animated object? For example, an
animated wooden table would have hardness 5, right? How
would that hardness affect spells such as fireball, lightning
bolt, Melf’s acid arrow, ray of frost, and magic missile?

In the FAQ I had from early 2005, it stated explicitly that acid and sonic attacks ignore hardness under the first bullet and that force attacks ignore hardness under the last bullet. So I read it perfectly well. I did specific searches for the words hardness, acid, sonic, and force, and every time it said the same thing: "ignore hardness". So you can politely shut up with your accusations that I don't know how to read or I will continue to retaliate in kind.

Hey, Hypersmurf, why am I the only one the rules are getting applied to here?

Oh, and good job everyone ignoring the most important parts of my posts with the answers from WotC. You're welcome. Sheesh, I try to help out the community and just keep getting attacked. Yeah, really cool.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Yeah.. everyone just chill on the "can't read" and "lying stuff".. after all, its just a game.

Anubis, unfortunately you are defending, in the rules forum and therefore against rules lawyer types, that the 'official' publication of WOTC called the FAQ counts as 'official' rules.. to the point of being RAW answers.
I read the FAQ only when someone on the board points me to a good answer due to the amount of bad answers that exist. The text of the sheathe weapon during a move fits nicely into this. Had the FAQ author written, as someone mentioned upthread, that this was a clarification of a rule that had been accidently left out of the printing.. nobody here would be arguing against it. Since the FAQ has a slightly less than reputable reputation with incidents of outright contradiction and some very obvoius rules faux pas... the lack of text showing the intent to change the rule casts the potential for the FAQ to be in error.

Much of this would be fixed if the FAQ had timestamps on thier answers.. as well as some other minor organization deals. WOTC has more lucrative things to work on than FAQ answers...

Anywho.. my opinion is that the FAQ represents WOTC published houserules... some good, some bad. Since it is not in a format easily tracked or maintained for reference at the table.. I ignore it most of the time... and wait for Hypersmurph to point out the particularly useful bits

YMMV.

 

[Caliban]

I would except after someone pointed out there was a new FAQ, I downloaded it. I don't have the old one now. All I know is that it was from early 2005 because I downloaded it shortly before starting my newest campaign.

Awfully convenient that.

However, my point still stands. I have copies of the FAQ from January 2005 that have contradictory answers. That's as early as you can get in 2005.

So your mythical FAQ from 2005 with all answers indicating that hardness was ignored never existed. The last FAQ that indicated that was in December of 2004. You misread the date or something, but rather than double checking your facts you declared everyone else wrong.

Guess what? We've been doing this longer than you have, and most of us are pretty certain of the statements we base our arguements on. (It's after we get our basic facts straight that the flamewars start.)

In the FAQ I had from early 2005, it stated explicitly that acid and sonic attacks ignore hardness under the first bullet and that force attacks ignore hardness under the last bullet. So I read it perfectly well. I did specific searches for the words hardness, acid, sonic, and force, and every time it said the same thing: "ignore hardness". So you can politely shut up with your accusations that I don't know how to read or I will continue to retaliate in kind.

My FAQ from January 28, 2005 has the first bullet and last bullet highlighted in red (indicating a change or addition from the previous FAQ), and states that they do NOT ignore hardness. That's the FAQ where the answer was corrected, but only for that one question. It was not updated in the other questions that had answers about acid ignoring hardness.

Hey, Hypersmurf, why am I the only one the rules are getting applied to here?

Your not. We just haven't crossed the line yet. (Although I have probably come pretty close, and will get a "vacation" myself if I'm not careful.)

Oh, and good job everyone ignoring the most important parts of my posts with the answers from WotC. You're welcome. Sheesh, I try to help out the community and just keep getting attacked. Yeah, really cool.

Your not helping by spreading misinformation and calling forum regulars liars.

Most of us were already aware that acid/sonic/force did not ignore hardness, and that the FAQ agreed with this viewpoint since January of 2005. We just point out the contradictions in the FAQ as a reason for why it cannot always be taken as a final authority.

I really suggest you try reading the whole FAQ before you try claiming that it's a definitive authority.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So your mythical FAQ...

We just haven't crossed the line yet. (Although I have probably come pretty close...)

Indeed... 'mythical FAQ' comes fairly close to 'You're lying'. The 'Be polite' warning applies to everyone.

Doesn't the FAQ usually include the date in its filename? Unless the file's been renamed, it should be as simple as the difference between Main35FAQv04012005.pdf and Main35FAQv12012004.pdf, right?

-Hyp.