Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pax" data-source="post: 333343" data-attributes="member: 6875">Call it cheap if you like, but ... a little of both; primarily as the GM, since only in the role of GM can I make a final say on the matter of rules and mechanics.However, IMO even a player has the right to make their case for or against using certain rules versus other rules, and I think my case is pretty compelling for those who aren't too knee-jerk reactionary at the slightest hint anything that smells even remotely cheesy.And, I *used* a PC with that chain ... once.  The GM for that campaign asked me (my character had died at about th end of the previous session, with the body unrecoverable and rtrue resurrection not an option), if I would play a "patsy" -- the GM knew the players were a highly suspicious lot, IC and OOC, and a player was more likely to slip "under the radar" as a turncoat / double-agent.  >8)At present, I am discussing this from a perspective not of trying to figure out how to "handle" a given feat chain; IMO, the Sword and Fist version of the feat was unbroken and needed no repair work whatsoever, given the simple, logical declaration "prone creatures cannot be tripped."The FAQ isn't an authoritative rules product.  JUST because it bears the WOTC imprint, does not mean it is official rules errata.Corinth, "de facto" bears zero weight.  Find me something in print where WOTC declares teh FAQ authoritative even over the Errata'd rules themselves -- IOW, "put up or shut up", because the fAQ is "Frequently Asked Questions" ... not "Correction of errors in the Core Rules" ... the latter wouldbe the Errata, and those ARE at least worthy of the respect due the rules.The FAQ is the official *interpretation* of the rules, granted.  However, where the FAQ interprets in items or assumptions that aren't there in the FIRST place ... the FAQ isn't worth as much as what I wipe my backside with after making use of the porcelain throne.IOW, the FAQ is meant to CLARIFY, not ocrrect, not add to.  Where it attempts to do so -- it exceeds it's already-limited authority.  In public debate I have to accept that the Errata is applied (though I can protest it, nonetheless).  The FAQ, save in matters of ambiguous interpretive difficulties, I can gleefully ignore, as it suits me.  FAQs are not corrective documents; corrective documents are errata.[minirant]<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> And furthermore ... I, at least, do not worship the WOTC imprint as though anything it is put upon, is to be treated as the unvarnished One True Word of God, to be taken literally, exactly, and unchangably, on penalty of Eternal Torment. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />   WOTC doesn't have Game Police who'll come kick your door down if you don't play EXACTLY by the rules, therefor ... no, Kershek, it doesn't matter if something is "fromt eh creator of the game" ... not one teensy, tiny little bit.Until and unless they label it "errata" ... and not a nanosecond before.[/minirant]FAQ != Rule.  End of story.</blockquote>

Verification