free action to sheathe ?

[Coredump]

You wanna talk about "not knowing how to read"? . . . Wait, no, you've got "selective reading" . . .

Hey cool, now you insult me as well as Hyp and others, I feel honored.

You ignore the fact that there are two questions on there, and that I followed up the first answer (which was indeed vague, as you pointed out) with a second question asking for a direct answer. Allow me to quote myself.

I asked: "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?"

The response was: "Yes, everything in the FAQ is meant to be official."

No, I am well aware that there are two questions there, I just don't think they answer what you want them to answer.

Problem 1: Is what I wrote last time, the question asked was fine, but it makes some assumptions that may not be the same assumptions that CustServ makes. This is why I gave an example of what was not answered. Try asking this question:

"There are statements made in the FAQ, that go against the rules written in the books, but they are not labeled as errata, nor are they even noted as being a change at all. Are those mistakes? Or should the FAQ be considered the new primary source, even if the changes are not called out as such?"
It would also help to follow up with some of those statements, like the sheathing during movement, and changing out light one two handed labels work.

Problem 2: You kept asking multiple parts, and it *seems* like they were answering all parts, but hard to be sure. The only part they called out was the 'official' part. Yes it is official, it is on the WoTC site, but since part of the contention is if WoTC/Sage even realize that some of these changes are changes..... *Sometimes* they call out when changes are being made, sometimes they don't.

Problem 3: Lets say that Monte Cook starts up a thread on his website about DnD rules. And lets say he offers some rule changes, or errata. Those are not official. Now lets say some of his 'errata' gets *included* in the new printing of the DMG. His site is still not official, even if *all* of this errata gets included, it still isn't 'official'; and the material still can't be assumed to be 'RAW'.
The fact that Sage has his column on the WoTC site, makes it 'official', but no more reliable. And part of the contention, is that there is a difference when Sage says "The rule should be changed to read (something new/different)" and says "The rules say (something wrong)" While there may be some contention whether Skip should be 'allowed' to make changes, a large part of the contention is if he is even aware of it. Skip's house rules should not be RAW.

 

[Caliban]

You have proof? Hardly. Unless you can verify that a) you have every single FAQ released for 3.5 and b) none of them are without contradiction, unless you can verify both of those, you have nothing.

Why on earth would I need that? My point is that the contradiction has existed since January of this year. I would just need the FAQ's from this year, plus at least one from before January to prove that all the answers (for the hardness issue) were wrong at some point.

Anyone can post just the FAQs that shows them to be right. I only need one FAQ to prove me right, while you need all of them to go your way to prove your own point.

Why would I need all of them? This really doesn't make any sense on your part.

And are you really claiming that the FAQ answer for this issue would have changed multiple times? The same FAQ that you want to hold up as a "final authority" rules document? Now you're undermining your own position.

Granted I didn't have every FAQ, but I'm damn certain that I downloaded it right before my newest campaign, which would be within six months before my move in May.

Well, since May is the 5th month, if you go back 6th months prior to that, your in December of 2004, not early 2005. I've already said that the contradiction appeared in January of 2005. The 2004 FAQ's have the old (incorrect but non-contradictory) answers. In January, one of the answers was corrected but not the others.

So you've proved yourself wrong there.

 

[cmanos]

shething should take more of an action than a free action. If anyone has actually ever worn a sword, they would know, drawing is as easy as grabbing the hilt and pulling it out. Sheathing on the other hand, you can't just, stick it in there. The slot in the sheath is pretty damn small and you wouldn't want to miss and poke yourself. It usually involved holding the sheath with one hand as a guide or looking at the sheath, or a combination of both.

Leave it as a Move Action.

 

[Artoomis]

shething should take more of an action than a free action. If anyone has actually ever worn a sword, they would know, drawing is as easy as grabbing the hilt and pulling it out. Sheathing on the other hand, you can't just, stick it in there. The slot in the sheath is pretty damn small and you wouldn't want to miss and poke yourself. It usually involved holding the sheath with one hand as a guide or looking at the sheath, or a combination of both.

Leave it as a Move Action.

Actaully, as one who HAS worn a sword, drawing is not as simple as pulling on the hilt. Often, if you do ONLY that, the sword won't come out very well at all. Generally, you need to use one hand on the end of the sheathe (just under the hilt) to hold the sheathe steady and then pull out the sword.

This does depend on sheathe design, but, generally, a sheathe is design not for ease of drawing and storing the weapon but for ease of movement both when the weapon is in the sheathe and when fighting with it out of the sheathe.

It takes very little more effort to put one away than it does to pull one out. Still, the rules certainly do NOT say that, and whether the FAQ entry is an error or a rule change is anybody's guess - at least until I get my answer back fron Customer Service - who is doing a much better job these days of expressing WotC's position and not their own personal opinion. I specifically asked for WotC's position on new rules/errata being posted in the FAQ - let's see what response I get.

 

[Coredump]

Actaully, as one who HAS worn a sword, drawing is not as simple as pulling on the hilt.

a sheathe is design not for ease of drawing... but for ease of movement/fighting

It takes very little more effort to put one away than it does to pull one out.

Agree
Agree
Disagree. You don't have to look to draw a sword, you can even do it while running. It is much harder to sheathe a sword without looking (especially with on hand.) And would be a real pain while running. At least IME.

I specifically asked for WotC's position on new rules/errata being posted in the FAQ - let's see what response I get.

But, did you ask about it when it is not called out? When there are (apparently) 'accidental' rule changes? My contention is that the Sage makes statements about the rules, that he does not realize are....changes.

 

[Artoomis]

...Disagree. You don't have to look to draw a sword, you can even do it while running. It is much harder to sheathe a sword without looking (especially with on hand.) And would be a real pain while running. At least IME. ....

It depends upon the experience of the sword-wielder and the design of the sheathe. Anyone with any reaonable amount of expereince should be able to sheathe the weapon pretty much by feel - though it is a bit harder than drawing it for sure.

This little side discussion really has little to do with what the rules are, though it may be of some value to someone trying to decide what to allow in some game somewhere.

 

[werk]

If anyone has actually ever worn a sword, they would know, drawing is as easy as grabbing the hilt and pulling it out. Sheathing on the other hand, you can't just, stick it in there. The slot in the sheath is pretty damn small and you wouldn't want to miss and poke yourself. It usually involved holding the sheath with one hand as a guide or looking at the sheath, or a combination of both.

Why do I feel naughty after reading that?

 

[Anubis]

Well, since people still felt the previous answer I got was vague, I e-mailed WotC again asking the question directly. Here it is for you all:


Response (Zephreum H.) 10/26/2005 08:14 AM
Thank you for contacting us.

Yes the D&D FAQ is also a source for Errata. It is considered official for purposes regarding the rules of D&D.

Take Care!
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.

Zephreum H.

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) 10/25/2005 09:03 PM
Some folks at a popular D&D web site continue to think that, after my previous two questions, that the FAQ is used only for clarifications. Seeing as several rules changes have been implemented in the FAQ, I have decided to follow through and try to get as direct an answer as I can on this subject. My question is simple:

Is the FAQ also a source of rules changes and errata?


There you have it, the bottom line. Now can we stop debating this ridiculous topic? It's over. WotC has spoken.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Anubis, unfortunately, all that your e-mail has done is to prove something on which I think we can can agree: Customer service is a bit spotty and contradictory, and it can't be trusted as official. To see why, check out the response they gave to gabrion in the poll thread about the FAQ where they said the exact opposite

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

There you have it, the bottom line. Now can we stop debating this ridiculous topic? It's over. WotC has spoken.

Yes, they have, and they disagree with you.

FAQs are simply answers to questions that may come up in a game. Usually these questions can be answered by the rules text, but the information may sometimes be hard to find. FAQs answer these questions and clear up any misnomers that people may have.

Errata are actually changes or additions to the rules. If something was accidentally left out, doesn't work the way it was intended, or doesn't follow the mechanics of the game correctly, our Research and Development teams will issue rules changes to clear things up. These rules changes are errata.

Explaining the rules (like the FAQ) and changing the rules (with an errata) are two very different things. FAQ should not change the rules, and errata should not simply explain them, though some errata could be made to clarify how something works. Because of this the two should not overlap, so you shouldn't have issues with one bleeding into the other.

So, your bottom line isn't. Sorry.

Okay, actually, I'm not sorry at all.