Is this PHB errata?

[DracoSuave]

So really what you're saying is you dearly want it to be a rule book despite the fact that multiple sources from WotC have said it is both wrong and not a rule book.

'Multiple Sources' seems dubious. Which sources?

What I am saying is that it IS a rules faq, and the latest rules faq, and the writers are in charge, so that makes it not likely to be 'just suggestions.'

It is a series of tips and suggestions for players. Can you stop ranting about it in every thread where the PSG can be held up a flimsy excuse for contradicting established rules now?

Which happens to have a FAQ inside it.

And seriously. New rules contridict old rules all the time. They change their minds on rulings, it happens.

There's an entire section of their website devoted to this idea. It's called 'updates.'

Seriously, don't act like this doesn't happen on a bi-monthly basis, or every time a new book comes out.

 

[Aulirophile]

'Multiple Sources' seems dubious. Which sources?

What I am saying is that it IS a rules faq, and the latest rules faq, and the writers are in charge, so that makes it not likely to be 'just suggestions.'



Which happens to have a FAQ inside it.

And seriously. New rules contridict old rules all the time. They change their minds on rulings, it happens.

There's an entire section of their website devoted to this idea. It's called 'updates.'

Seriously, don't act like this doesn't happen on a bi-monthly basis, or every time a new book comes out.

CS, a few developer twitters, actual WotC employees telling people on the CharOp boards to stop exploiting MCing to Monk to grab proficiency with all Implements because it is an error.

Even assuming the PSG was a rulebook (its not), telling people that an error in the book will solve their problems when said error is going to be corrected isn't actually helping them overly much. Even if the issue is merely doubtful, still isn't helpful, because in 2-4 weeks their build could be useless if you end up being wrong. I don't see anything wrong with not acknowledging a not-rulebook that is riddled with errors, this isn't the only one, that WotC has said "was published right after errata and we missed updating some things." Everything in that book that disagrees with an established rule or errata is highly suspect and not a good thing to base a build around.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

With regards to my Ranger|Invoker dilemma, if I spend a Hybrid Talent feat on Hunter Fighting Style from MP2, I can freely switch between bow and rod without spending any actions (and get a +2 to initiative to boot!).

 

[DracoSuave]

CS,

contradicts printed rules on a regular basis and are even less of a reliable source than a 'non-rule book'.

a few developer twitters, actual WotC employees telling people on the CharOp boards to stop exploiting MCing to Monk to grab proficiency with all Implements because it is an error.

...but this (i'm assuming you've seen them and this isn't hearsay) is a LOT more reliable, given that it's actually a source-we-can-trust(TM) that actually might be able to outweigh the designers of the book in question.

That being:

The head of design and the head of development.

The bosses of the above people.

Even assuming the PSG was a rulebook (its not),

Again, irrelevant, as it is a rules faq. This is a very dubious stance to take, given the book itself purports to include 'explanations' of game elements, including the rules.

At no point does it purport to be 'a noob book that you can safely ignore that contains no explanations of rules what-so-ever.' That's a stance the book does not take, along with the 'this is not a rulebook' stance that is claimed to be on the first page.

PROTIP: It is not.

telling people that an error in the book will solve their problems when said error is going to be corrected isn't actually helping them overly much. Even if the issue is merely doubtful, still isn't helpful, because in 2-4 weeks their build could be useless if you end up being wrong.

This is what the updates/errata page exists for.

Also, this happens every two months regardless, for not-not-rulebooks.

I don't see anything wrong with not acknowledging a not-rulebook that is riddled with errors, this isn't the only one, that WotC has said "was published right after errata and we missed updating some things." Everything in that book that disagrees with an established rule or errata is highly suspect and not a good thing to base a build around.

One, 'WotC' hasn't said anything. Various employees of WotC may have, who have served underneath the authors of the book. WotC itself has not done a damn thing. No word that is official has been put out.

However, as there's been a regime change (Andy Collins being laid off) things might be different. Has James Wyatt (the design manager) signed on as one of the names saying 'This was bad?' If so, -that- is official. Bill Slavecsek? if so, -that- is official. Those are the only two that could really have a word that is 'This is what we are doing' as the former is the head of design, and the latter is the head of D&DR&D and is the boss.

Or, whoever they had replaced Andy Collins with, who was head of development and editing (insert errata joke here).