Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Infiniti2000]

It is not an insult, it is a description of a mental state in which someone cannot be convinced of a fact (or in this case, the FAQ) without directly experiencing evidence from a primary source.

I maintain it's an insult and intended as such when it isn't true and the person making the statement knows it isn't true. As an example, I could ascribe the same "mental state" to those who adhere to the FAQ in ignorance of the errata. It doesn't make it a true statement, though.

Here, the primary source would be the people who did the 3.5Ed revision.

No, the primary source is the core books + errata. WotC can change those if they wish, but until they do change them, then, well, they remain unchanged. The FAQ and the designers are important, to be sure, but they are not primary sources by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Anubis- I think Patryn (and others) are in what has been called a "state of invincible ignorance"- No insult intended, y'all!

I disagree (and understand the lack of insult in the above).

This is much more analogous to the Constitutional Law analogy brought up earlier.

The Core is the Constitution. The Errata are Amendments. The list of "accepted books" for a given campaign - like campaign settings, the Complete series, etc. - are Amendments that need to be passed by, generally, the DM before they may go into effect.

The FAQ is supposed to be the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, it sometimes tries to act like Congress and pass laws on its own (whether or not it knows it is doing it). Anyway, when it offers up a law that is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional - no matter how many years the distinguished Senator from Umptysquat has been serving and no matter how many bills he's authored (i.e., no matter how "official" the Sage is).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Fine. You can take it as an insult. Be insulted all you want.

It is not an insult, however, and should not be taken as one.

No, the primary source is the core books + errata. WotC can change those if they wish, but until they do change them, then, well, they remain unchanged. The FAQ and the designers are important, to be sure, but they are not primary sources by any stretch of the imagination.

Again, you misunderstand. I'm not debating the primary source of the rules, but the source of the statement "FAQ=Errata." Anubis has come up with several postings from his communication with WizCustServ to that effect, and it is still not acceptible to some.

In this thread, those who refuse to accept that WOTC considers the FAQ to be the current source of official errata are doing so because the group making the assertion "FAQ=Errata" has proven to be wrong in the past. Despite the possible truth of the statement, the source of the statement has proven to be of dubious credibility. Anubis and others can post as many discussions with WizCustServ as they want containing statements equivalent to "FAQ=Errata" and Patryn and others will still be able to say that WizCustServ is an unreliable source for that statement because WizCustServ has been unreliable in general.

Thus, the only primary source those people might consider believing "FAQ=Errata" are the designers themselves, not their employees in Wizard's Customer Service department.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually, you're still wrong, Danny.

The reason that FAQ =\= Errata is not because I don't trust CustServ, it's because:

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.

You'll note that there are two particular sections on the WotC website: FAQs and Erratas. You find official Errata files in the Errata section. You don't find official Errata files in the FAQ section.

 

[Anubis]

Heh, they wouldn't even believe it then. They're obviously entrenched in their erroneous ways.

Anyway, enough of posting this stuff here. I'll link you to the new thread that will converge this discussion into a single thread. I ask everyone to begin posting there from here on out.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=153953

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Right, Patryn, but Anubis posted several times that WOTC's Customer Service Department
considers FAQ to be Errata now.

There are only 2 reasons why WizCustServ would make that claim: it is either true and they are telling people this per instruction from higher-up, or WizCustServ is incorrect in the statement (for whatever reason).

If its the former, the structure of their website is confusing, but irrelevant. If it is the latter, then you're absolutely correct and WizCustServ is just reinforcing its unreliability. (The problem, of course, is that you cannot know whether the former or the latter is true without being able to query the higher echelons of WOTC.)

Might I suggest you ask them the question yourself? If their response to you is equivalent to the response to Anubis and you continue to dispute "FAQ=Errata", all I can say is that you distrust WizCustServ (albeit not without justification).

 

[Dimwhit]

Actually, you're still wrong, Danny.

The reason that FAQ =\= Errata is not because I don't trust CustServ, it's because:



You'll note that there are two particular sections on the WotC website: FAQs and Erratas. You find official Errata files in the Errata section. You don't find official Errata files in the FAQ section.

You realize that Wizards doesn't update the errata anymore, right? It's been over a year for the PHB. By your thinking, there will never be a clarification on any ambiguous rule again, because they've been doing it in the FAQ instead.

So enjoy that. Personally, I'll take the rules clarifications when they come.

(And, by the way, since this is the INA thread, the FAQ answer is just that. It clarifies what the core rules say, it doesn't contradict or provide errata. There's really no reason to argue the matter.)

 

[Anubis]

Yeah, this is the INA thread. I tried to converge all the FAQ discussion into one thread about the FAQ/errata, but Hypersmurf is too busy arguing with me and making sarcastic comments to actually be a moderator.

 

[Legildur]

Heh, they wouldn't even believe it then. They're obviously entrenched in their erroneous ways.

You do realise that the same statement could equally be made about your position in this debate?

And perhaps you need to edit your comment (and perhaps even add an apology) about the moderator as I just noticed that the numerous other threads about FAQ v Errata have now been locked by said moderator with a polite explanatory note.

 

[Caliban]

Yeah, this is the INA thread. I tried to converge all the FAQ discussion into one thread about the FAQ/errata, but Hypersmurf is too busy arguing with me and making sarcastic comments to actually be a moderator.

That's probably the only reason you haven't been banned again.