Rant: Stop dismissing the FAQ

[DungeonMaester]

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.

Just look at the premade characters for the last D&D GameDay. I was a Wizard that duel wield swords.

---Rusty

 

[Sithobi1]

That was the wizard who didn't have full ranks in Concentration. *shudders* Everyone knows Concentration is THE most important skill, and yet...

 

[Mistwell]

I like the FAQ, read the FAQ, use the FAQ, and find it a great addition to the game.

I think it is also an official ruling. It's as official as the RAW. It's from the same source as the RAW (WOTC) and declared official by that source in the same way that the RAW is declared official.

It's also not at all unknown to draw rules from non-RAW sources. I think almost everyone accepts the Complete Warrior rule that removes the multi classing XP penalty rule for prestige class levels. If that is considered a "rule" right along side the RAW, then I do not see why the FAQ is not.

And yes, the FAQ is wrong sometimes, as is RAW. So what? You take rules, or leave them, like everything else in the game.

Some day when I rule the Universe, my second decision will be to issue errata that adds the FAQ to the RAW. That's right after I nerf Divine Metamagic.

By the way, I also think the dismissal of the FAQ is getting close to the level of "uncivil behavior". The dismissal seems to cursory these days that it feels rude to me. A lot of people like and use the FAQ and feel it's included right along with the other rules. You can certainly disagree about that, but disagreement /= dismissal.

 

[Moonstone Spider]

To explain my unwritten subtext even further, by that post of a warning about the priority of errata over the FAQ I saw it as proof of the fact that people take the FAQ/errata/RAW too freakin seriously - as if it has some mysterious power to run your game and that care must then be exercised. "Care" be damned. 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. People will argue the RULES till they get blue in the face, hurl insults, get their threads shut down, and themselves suspended or banned. All they need to do is tell themselves that the RULES are what you want them to be and if you don't like them change them.

The rules ARE DnD. What I'm basically paying Wizards of the Coast for, are rules. If the rules are bad, I've gotten a bad product. If I have to write my own rules, I might just as well make my own game and keep the money for something that will actually be useful, instead of buying Rules I don't need and that don't do for what I paid for them to do. If the Rules are unimportant why am I buying the book? I can get pretty pictures off Deviant Art free and I can collect all manner of interesting fluff text just by reading random fantasy books and throwing elements together to suit myself.

 

[green slime]

This worldwide gaming community concept of "anything goes" tends to not be tolerated quite as much in gaming groups that more or less follow RAW closer. Or, at least IME.

I'd disagree on this. IME, "anything goes" is less tolerated in gaming groups where the DM has spent a great deal of time and effort to create a definite place/game/feel, as opposed to just throwing something together for an evening. RAW can be quite hairy enough if you allow all the various books and options (Complete Disaster series, et al). The Complete series, are they considered RAW?

 

[Legildur]

By the way, I also think the dismissal of the FAQ is getting close to the level of "uncivil behavior". The dismissal seems to cursory these days that it feels rude to me. A lot of people like and use the FAQ and feel it's included right along with the other rules. You can certainly disagree about that, but disagreement /= dismissal.

And having a dodgy document shoved down your throat as gospel is equally "uncivil behavior", particular where it can be demonstrated to be wrong.

I find the FAQ useful. But not in my wildest dreams would I use it to underpin a technical argument - there are sufficient errors in there to create doubt in my mind about its veracity. But that's just my opinion.

Green Slime, I could be wrong, but I believe that typically when people talk about RAW that they are talking about Core Rules (PHB, DMG, MM). I doubt that is a unanimous view though.

 

[KarinsDad]

RAW can be quite hairy enough if you allow all the various books and options (Complete Disaster series, et al). The Complete series, are they considered RAW?

Yes.

They are not core, but they are RAW.

 

[glass]

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?

No, it quite clearly demonstrates that the people involved in those debates, at least, don't think it is ambiguous. You have to be a complete idiot to argue for 20 pages about a position you thought was unsupportable (because it was based on ambiguous text).


glass.

 

[glass]

I find the FAQ useful. But not in my wildest dreams would I use it to underpin a technical argument - there are sufficient errors in there to create doubt in my mind about its veracity. But that's just my opinion.

Even if it had a perfect track record, 'the FAQ says so' would would not trump a well-contructed argument that diagreed with it. It would still be an Appeal to Authority.


glass.

 

[glass]

Yes.

They are not core, but they are RAW.

More precisely, they have RAW. They contain rules and those rules are written somehow. Since every supplement is optional, it is not necessarily RAW that you will use in your game, but it is RAW.

Just like, say, Exalted has RAW, but it has no bearing on your D&D game.


glass.