Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pax" data-source="post: 333960" data-attributes="member: 6875">The purpose of a FAQ is to answer questions in an interpretive way -- not to add additional factors.  One should not *HAVE* to refer to a FAQ to have access to all the details and rules pertinent to a given situation; one should only need to refer to the FAQ when a rule exists, and you've read it, but don't understand the meaning of what is written.  The moment a FAQ attempts to add a new rule, it invalidates itself; it is no longer merely answering questions about the rules, it is adding to the rules, and thatis not what a FAQ is supposed to be for.If the Sage's answers ewere meant to become an official body of rules-interpretive or rules-additive information, then a careful and precise log of those rulings wouldhave been kept by WOTC.  Sicne no such log has been kept, the logical conclusion is, his rulings are in fact not meant to become Official Rules ina nd of themselves, solely and exclusively because "The Sage" says them.  The Sage isn't God; get over it already.The fAQ is the authority on interpreting the rules as they are published and/or errata'd ... but it is not the proper venue for introducing wholly new and heretofore nonexistant rules.  Not even close.So ... nice try, but no cigar for you, thank you for playing.Oh, and Jeremy: quoting people out of context is very naughty:When, actually, I said:Gee whillickers, lookit that!  CONTEXT changes everything!  My statement,which you grossly misquoted by taking only HALF of a statement and therefor robbingit of it's proper context, was a conditional statement and not the absolute you would misrepresent it as having been!FAQs can be very, very useful tools for increasing understanding of existing rules.  But they're not worth the paper they'renot even printed on, if and when they purport to add NEW rules.Perhaps people shoudl stop worshipping the WOTC imprint, and The Sage, as though every thing said by that personage, and/or bearing that imprint, was the One True Word of God -- and think for themselves ... what a novel concept, eh?Agreed, BUT: the FAQ is not a proper venue for new additions to the rules, ergo, "new rules" added via the FAQ are of extremely dubious value, at the absolute, very best.  In fact I would hazard to say they are completely and utterly worthless, until and unless the Errata is updated to include those "new rules" ... otherwise they're suggested House Rules, nothing more ... and IMO often far, far less.Regardless such "new rules" are irrelevant to discussionsof the official state of the rules.FAQs are interpretive, not additive, not corrective.  For additive documents, turn to supplements and the Errata.  For corrective documents, turn solely to the Errata (though partsof this are often included, as apparent courtesy, in some supplements).Therefor, additive elements of a document labeled "FAQ" are, in fact, bankrupt WRT bearing the seal of officialdom as actual Rules.</blockquote>

Verification