Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Power Attack, Weapon Finesse, and Lances
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Felix" data-source="post: 3312557" data-attributes="member: 3929"><p>If the purpose of the FAQ is to clarify, then it should be grounded in the RAW. The FAQ has no RAW grounding on this issue; its only support is itself.</p><p></p><p>Were there another convincing interpretation of the RAW, and the FAQ decided between the two of them, then it works in its capacity to clarify. If you would like to provide an argument that uses the text of the PHB to rule that lances don't get 2-for-1 Power Attack (<em>without resorting to the FAQ</em>), then I will consider that argument's merits. </p><p></p><p>As it stands, the FAQ's argument is, "No, no, the PHB is wrong. It doesn't mean what it says, what it means is actually this..." This is not clarification, it is revision. </p><p></p><p>Of course, if you believe that the FAQ's purview is to revise rules, then its rulings have no need to be grounded in the RAW, but may change what they like when they like. At which point there is nothing to be gained from further discussion.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I believe that the FAQ has an obligation to be grounded in the RAW, and to clarify what is written.</p><p></p><p>I believe the power to change the rules resides with errata, and not with the FAQ.</p><p></p><p>I believe when the FAQ and the RAW are in clear disagreement, the FAQ's ruling is supersceded by the RAW.</p><p></p><p>If you disagree with any of those beliefs, then you're right: there's no point in continuing any discussion.</p><p></p><p><em>However</em>, if you agree with those things, and if you believe that the text of the RAW is ambiguous <em>in and of itself</em> (which would mean that the FAQ clarifies between two possible rulings), then please present your RAW-grounded argument, and I will honestly consider it.</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>PS. My original reply was in order to show that an answer's clarity does not necessarily reflect its validity; instead clarity is considered a virtue because it allows the answer's validity to be checked more readily. Though I do believe the FAQ to be wrong here, I was not taking sides in that post, merely pointing out something that may trip people up: the idea that because something is clear it is correct. Not that you intended to espouse that idea, but it could easily be construed from your post.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Felix, post: 3312557, member: 3929"] If the purpose of the FAQ is to clarify, then it should be grounded in the RAW. The FAQ has no RAW grounding on this issue; its only support is itself. Were there another convincing interpretation of the RAW, and the FAQ decided between the two of them, then it works in its capacity to clarify. If you would like to provide an argument that uses the text of the PHB to rule that lances don't get 2-for-1 Power Attack ([i]without resorting to the FAQ[/i]), then I will consider that argument's merits. As it stands, the FAQ's argument is, "No, no, the PHB is wrong. It doesn't mean what it says, what it means is actually this..." This is not clarification, it is revision. Of course, if you believe that the FAQ's purview is to revise rules, then its rulings have no need to be grounded in the RAW, but may change what they like when they like. At which point there is nothing to be gained from further discussion. I believe that the FAQ has an obligation to be grounded in the RAW, and to clarify what is written. I believe the power to change the rules resides with errata, and not with the FAQ. I believe when the FAQ and the RAW are in clear disagreement, the FAQ's ruling is supersceded by the RAW. If you disagree with any of those beliefs, then you're right: there's no point in continuing any discussion. [i]However[/i], if you agree with those things, and if you believe that the text of the RAW is ambiguous [i]in and of itself[/i] (which would mean that the FAQ clarifies between two possible rulings), then please present your RAW-grounded argument, and I will honestly consider it. --- PS. My original reply was in order to show that an answer's clarity does not necessarily reflect its validity; instead clarity is considered a virtue because it allows the answer's validity to be checked more readily. Though I do believe the FAQ to be wrong here, I was not taking sides in that post, merely pointing out something that may trip people up: the idea that because something is clear it is correct. Not that you intended to espouse that idea, but it could easily be construed from your post. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Power Attack, Weapon Finesse, and Lances
Top
