Once again, inconsistent FAQ's ...

[Christian]

I've just got to quit reading these things-they're raising my blood pressure. I posted last week about contradictions between what the FAQ said about Ride-by Attack and what the Rules of the Game article said the FAQ said about Ride-by Attack. And now, just to top it off, the FAQ has a new entry on standing from prone ...

According to the Epic Level Handbook, a DC 35 Tumble check allows a character to stand up from prone as a free action (instead of a move action). Does this provoke attacks of opportunity? ... The "free stand" action described in the Epic Level Handbook, and repeated in Complete Adventurer, still provokes attacks of opportunity as normal ...

OK, fine. Except:

Is there any way to avoid the attack of opportunity provoked by standing up? Oriental Adventures and the Epic Level Handbook both say that you can stand from prone as a free action with a DC 35 Tumble check. However, they make no mention of avoiding attacks of opportunity since standing did not provoke attacks of opportunity when those rules were written ... Anyone who has seen a Jackie Chan movie knows that one can spring to one's feet quickly without making yourself [sic] too vulnerable to attacks. With a DC 35 Tumble check, you can stand up from prone as a free action without provoking attacks of opportunity.

I hate to repeat myself. But

PICK

AN

ANSWER

!!!

(And, just to point out something the Sage missed that the older question correctly notes; the reason that the Song & Silence Thief-Acrobat "kip-up" ability doesn't mention whether that action provokes an attack of opportunity is that it's a 3.0 book, and in 3.0 standing up from prone didn't provoke attacks of opportunity. So the (correct) presumption that the ability doesn't change the regular rule doesn't help us much in converting, since the regular rule as far as Song & Silence was concerned would have been that no AoO is provoked ... Hazards of using 3.0 sourcebooks in a 3.5 game, I'd say.)

Bleargh.

 

[D+1]

I've just got to quit reading these things-they're raising my blood pressure.

You should stop reading them period unless you CANNOT figure out a good answer on your own. If you must read them, read them for the sake of INPUT into your own decision, not as an empirical source that you want/need/must follow. FAQ's and Sage Advice should be the LEAST important source of input regardless of their "officiality".

 

[Felix]

You should stop reading them period unless you CANNOT figure out a good answer on your own.

Lay off the guy; he's upset that the folks who are supposed to know the most about this game can't get their story straight, not that he can't make a decision on his own. And he certainly has a right to be upset over the staggering mistakes and inconsistencies to be found within the FAQ.

There are those on this board who find solace in the FAQ, and quote it in their decisions about how they would rule something. And then there is me, who thinks the FAQ is poo-poo, and points to things like this to confirm it.

Christian:

There is nothing to be gained from reading the FAQ, except possibly a belly-laugh.

 

[RigaMortus]

Who actually updates the FAQ? Is it WotC Cusomer Service? It sure seems like it.

 

[Nail]

Wasn't I reading somewhere that there was a "changing of the guard" from Skip to .....???

 

[Laman Stahros]

Wasn't I reading somewhere that there was a "changing of the guard" from Skip to .....???

to Andy Collins, according to Dragon #329.

Sad Times.

 

[Fedifensor]

to Andy Collins, according to Dragon #329.

Sad Times.

I find it funny that everyone bagged on Skip when he was the Sage. Now, it's Andy's turn to be the bad guy in these 'sad times', implying that Skip was better.

Honestly, it seems like whoever is running the FAQ, there's some sort of WotC mandate to flip a coin to figure out the answer. They need to pay someone really talented to take a few weeks and go through the FAQ with a fine-toothed comb, getting the answers to at least be consistant with each other.

 

[Nighthawk]

I read the FAQ simply for a perspective other than the people I game with. I find it no worse than what they have said (which includes myself as well).

 

[Li Shenron]

I've just got to quit reading these things-they're raising my blood pressure.

Take it easy man, don't get frustrated because of this

When FAQs and articles mess things up, the chaos paves the ground for DM's rulership Or, in other words, when you can show your players that not even the authors can figure out how things should work, the consequence is just that YOUR ruling cannot be wrong.

You have to remember that WotC is just a company, with people working and making mistakes, and sometimes people come and go and roles pass to someone else. Everyone weighting each sentence to the last single word (not just in the FAQ, but in the books themselves) without a grain of salt isn't exactly the best DM possible.