Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gabrion" data-source="post: 2211837" data-attributes="member: 30779">Trust me when I say I'm not totally convinced of either side of this, and I'm not so much trying to argue as get a rules clarification.  For all of you who already get it, sorry I'm so slow. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />My problem laid out im my earlier post is still bugging me.  If the FAQ wasn't serving as an Errata, but a rules clarification, then why would WotC reprint the same unclear feat in 3.5 and not clarify in the FAQ whether or not a touch spell has a fixed range?  The simple answer is that they are lazy or whatever, but I'm not willing to buy that.My case is that authors can change rules through the addition or subtraction of text.  If a rule in 3.0 had something added to it in 3.0 and the authors of 3.5 are fully aware of it and reprint the rule in 3.5 but without the addition, then I don't think the 3.0 material would apply any more.  As long as this has to do with the 3.0 FAQ, let's look at an example.AMF in 3.0 was kinda unclear.  The 3.0 FAQ is the only place where WotC explained that AMF blocks line of effect.  In 3.5 the spell is reprinted and still doesn't make it exactly clear whether or not it blocks line of effect, but this time the FAQ says nothing about it.  Does this mean that AMF blocks line of effect?  I'm not arguing one side or the other, but I know that if you contact WotC they will tell you that the clarification was left out on purpose this time, because AMF is not meant to block line of effect.  What is your opinion on this?Lastly, isn't the rule of thumb that anything from 3.0 is only in effect if there has not been a 3.5 update for it?  Why wouldn't this apply to FAQs?  As I said, the authors had full knowledge of the issues raise in the 3.0 FAQ, so they had to take an active effort in leaving such things out in 3.5.  Thanks for the help.</blockquote>

Verification