Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It's a wonderful example. The fact that the bright minds on this site cannot agree on whether, by the PHB/DMG/MM only, the monk can take INA or not pretty well means it is ambigous, right?

Well, that, or it means that some people are stubbornly wrong.

 

[Artoomis]

Well, that, or it means that some people are stubbornly wrong.

Sure, the other guy!



In the end, when there are two rules-based arguments that come to different conclusions, its nice to have an official decision on the matter from WotC.

Of course, that does not mean the other side of the argument was wrong - maybe they were both "right." Now, however, there is on "official" position on the matter.

 

[Felix]

It only proves my now long-founded contention that there is a too-well-established fixation (and it's still growing) upon RULES RULES RULES above all.

I disagree. I argue for the RAW's ascendancy over the FAQ because I believe that before you go changing the rules, it's important to know what the rules are: you need to know exactly what you're changing to have a good idea of what kind of effects the change is going to create.

I'm all for changing and breaking the rules. I just like it to be done with the knowledge of what you're changing them from.

That [Monks and INA], it seems to me, is one of the primary purposes of the FAQ and why it should not be dismissed out-of-hand.

Except that because the opposing viewpoint can produce enough RAW evidence to keep a debate going for 20 pages means that it is grounded, which the FAQ doesn't have to be.

If the FAQ agrees with the RAW, it is redundant.
If the FAQ disagrees with the RAW, it is in error.
If the FAQ submits a ruling for something the RAW does not cover at all, then it provides an official opinion and a standard.​

The trouble is, it is not always clear that the RAW does or does not provide rulings for a particular subject. You might say that the RAW is silent on Monks and INA because it does not clearly say "no", and therefore the FAQ is useful in this situation. But others might cite precident in the RAW and argue that that precident is the RAW's ruling, and therefore the FAQ is not ruling on something the RAW ignores, but rather the FAQ contradicts the RAW, in which case it is in error.

 

[KarinsDad]

Except that because the opposing viewpoint can produce enough RAW evidence to keep a debate going for 20 pages means that it is grounded, which the FAQ doesn't have to be.

I have been in 20 page posts where on page 13, someone has posted a RAW refutation on a given subject and I switch sides because that is what RAW supports.

That is the advantage of discussing issues here on the forum: extensive research and input from many people.

With the FAQ, one does not know how much time or effort was spent on the subject. The author may have merely gone to the first reference in the PHB and ruled accordingly.

 

[Nail]

If the FAQ contradicts the RAW, I'd be nice if the FAQ writers let us know they knew.

Too often it looks as if the FAQ writers did not know they were contradicting the rules. ...kinda like WotC CustServe.

 

[Drowbane]

Negative, the pattern is full.

I put this in rules since the FAQ normally refers to rules.

I've noticed of late that the FAQ has been getting dismissed more and more by people on the rules forum. Now I like most of the people who have read the FAQ, understand that its not right 100%. Its made some mistakes, we get that. And there's nothing wrong with taking it with a grain of salt.

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.

The FAQ is not RAW, I get that. But when you have two very reasonable arguments, both sides with RAW backing, the FAQ definately can give some weight to one side or the other. But people won't give an inch in this department. I've seen people fight to the bitter end on an argument when the other side is just as reasonable AND has FAQ backing. There comes a point when you have to remember a former developer of the game is writing it, and as such can provide a valuable insight into the spirit of the rules when the exact letter of the rules is murky.

So what I'm saying is, give the FAQ some of its due, it does help clear up a lot of rules conflict.

Thats just it... the FAQ is weightless. It is typically written as if by some mook at WotC who wouldn't know a d4 from a d8.

 

[IanB]

At my table, and in my posts, the FAQ is RAW. I may have house rules that contradict it, maybe even many of them, but they're just that: house rules.

 

[Felix]

the FAQ is RAW

So you've house ruled the Primary Source rule. Ok.

 

[IanB]

So you've house ruled the Primary Source rule. Ok.

My feeling is that WotC themselves are treating the FAQ as a primary source, so I will treat it the same way.

 

[Felix]

My feeling is that WotC themselves are treating the FAQ as a primary source

Oh, I think that they are indeed treating it as a primary source. I vehemently disagree with this decision and doubt the wisdom of doing so, but I do agree that they are.