Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ

[DM_Matt]

I thought the DM Overrides any rules. I dont know any Dm that uses the Errata..

Those situations are called "House Rules."

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I don't dismiss the FAQ. I just disrespect it.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

Careful here. The FAQ may be like that, but Errata does override RAW.

No. You may choose to have the Errata override RAW. That is a valid (and in many cases preferrable) option. But Errata does not override the RAW at all tables.


Regarding the OP's question:

My personal take on the FAQ is that those issues are best left for individual groups to figure out for themselves what makes the most sense. Here's why I think so:

1. Suppose the FAQ is wrong in an answer (it's happened before!). In this case, that specific portion of the FAQ is worthless.

2. Suppose the FAQ picks one side of an argument that RAW can be used to support both sides. In this case, the FAQ can be used to get another's opinions. But if RAW can go either way what is more important is that the actual group of gamers finds which side of the argument according to RAW they find most reasonable. Thus, the FAQ can have some voice, but the opinions of the actual gamers at the table is more important than the FAQ.



So, can the FAQ serve a purpose? Sure it can. But I am honestly much more interested in what the gamers say than the FAQ. In a marginal call, its the gamers who have to decide what they can live with.

Thus, the problem with the FAQ and this board is that the FAQ is usually either wrong or discussing some point that is better of being a judgment call. Forums like this are about black and white and don't accept gray very easily.

 

[Infiniti2000]

No. You may choose to have the Errata override RAW. That is a valid (and in many cases preferrable) option. But Errata does not override the RAW at all tables.

Actually, that's exactly what the errata does do. That's its purpose. The RAW is the same at every table out there in the world, but of course some people define "RAW" differently. A poll was done once, but probably lost in the Big Shakedown, and I'm fairly sure it was an overwhelming majority who viewed RAW as core books + errata. Most of the remainder viewed RAW as any WotC book + errata. Very very few chose RAW as anything else.

 

[Psion]

I think the problem with FAQ bashers is that all too often they just don't agree with the FAQ decision, and therefore dismiss the FAQ as "wrong."

Yeah, I'd say at least by a 3:1 ratio.

But I recall a 3.0 FAQ statement wherein the author and/or developer came out and said "no, that's really not what I meant." So it happens.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I've encountered sections of the PHB where the rules were vague or self-contradictory, and have noted FAQs that were the same.

Heck, there is probably some erroneous errata out there (I don't know of any, but...).

So I pretty much view WotC's output as a whole. If there are various WotC positions on a particular section of rules (one from RAW, one from FAQ, and one is errata), I try to reconcile them as best I can. Generally, I settle on the interpretation that is either the most harmonious with the flow of game play or the one that is most similar to analogous rules sections (if any).

Result, I only use RAW as a starting point.

 

[catsclaw227]

I'm not a regular lurker in the rules forum, so I don't know where the RAW is vague and the FAQ is wrong. Can some of you point out rules where:

1. The FAQ is just plain wrong
2. The RAW is vague and the FAQ is also either vague ro just plain wrong.
3. The RAW is vague and the FAQ clears things up. (and yet others denouce the FAQ as being wrong)

I feel like I am standing in a room with everyone sharing an inside joke at the expense of other onlookers. Please, can anyone address my quoted text above?

 

[FireLance]

Heck, there is probably some erroneous errata out there (I don't know of any, but...).

I don't know about erroneous, but the PHB errata stated that the paladin's special mount spell-like ability was the equivalent of a spell one-third the paladin's level. This means that a 6th-level paladin who doesn't allocate skill points to Concentration suddenly finds it slightly more difficult to summon his mount if he needs to make a Concentration check to use his ability on the defensive, for example.

The other class that had such a spell-level equivalent scaling ability in the rules, the warlock, quickly got its base eldritch blast spell-level equivalent errata'ed to a flat 1st.

However, the "errata" for the paladin's special mount remains unchanged. Granted, it will probably never be an issue in actual play, but if it ever comes up in my game, I'm making it a flat 3rd-level spell equivalent.

 

[Thanee]

I like the FAQ in most cases (exceptions exist, like the silly ruling on metamagic rods).

Bye
Thanee

 

[glass]

Allow me to retort

Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ!

Never! (Well, not until they stop giving me a reason to, anyway ).

However, I'm noticing more and more that people are just outright dismissing anything it says off hand. If two people are having an argument and one brings up the FAQ, its like he's suddenly wrong because the FAQ can never be right.

It is not that he is necessarily wrong, it is just that he is not demontrating that he right. He is using a logical fallacy instead of appropriate argument.

IOW If the person who agrees with the FAQ is right, then he will be able to demonstrate that without recourse to appeals to authority. And if he is wrong then all the FAQs in the world won't make him less wrong.

I hate to break this to you, but the core rulebooks had and still have contradictions too. I guess you'll have to throw them away now.

But they also have a rule for resolving those contradictions: The primary source rule. The same rule dictates that the FAQ is thrown away when it contradicts the PHB.

I think the problem with FAQ bashers is that all too often they just don't agree with the FAQ decision, and therefore dismiss the FAQ as "wrong." Sure, the FAQ may have some errors, but show me a rules book that doesn't. Just b/c there's a few errors (and when I mean errors, I mean something that can objectively be shown to be an error - not just something someone thinks is wrong) doesn't mean the document as a whole isn't "correct."

That's pretty much exactly what it means, and in any case: How come if you think it is wrong then it is a real error, but if I think it is wrong then it has to be "wrong" in inverted commas?

Personally and in general, I think the FAQ has far more credibility than what "some guy(s)" on the internet might think. That's not to say that someone can't come up with a good counterargument, but I'll side with the FAQ 9 times out of 10 when I hear, "This guy on the net thinks..."

I also don't take much notice of what a guy on the internet thinks ...unless and until they come up with a reasoned argument why they think that.

And AFAIAC "This guy on the net thinks...", is an excellent description of the FAQ. The fact that the guy happens to work for WotC doesn't alter that.


glass.