Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 3219175" data-attributes="member: 18549">Here's my take on it.  For the purposes of this explanation, assume that all "right answers" agree with the RAW, but that the RAW does not always spell out the rules in a perfect fashion.  Sometimes the RAW is just vague and allows for multiple interpretations.  There are therefore answers in the FAQ which are neither right nor wrong, but which are commensurable with the RAW.-----If the FAQ is wrong, then the ruling in the FAQ should be disregarded.  Therefore the wrong rulings in the FAQ are not useful.If the FAQ is right, then the ruling in the FAQ reflects what is already present in the source text.  Therefore the right rulings in the FAQ are only useful for pointing out where a rule may be found.If the FAQ clarifies a rule that was previously vague, for which there was no right or wrong answer:1. That clarification should have been a correction included in the errata document instead.2. That clarification is a matter of opinion and any given FAQ reader may or may not agree with it.  Therefore clarifications are only useful if you already agree with them.This means that the FAQ is only useful if:1. You can't locate a certain rule.  Given that many WotC books have no index, this is not insignificant.  However, it requires that the FAQ has covered that rule.2. You want backup in an argument about whether you're right about a ruling on an incommensurable topic.  "Well the FAQ says ... and it's the official answer, so..."3. You can't decide which way to rule on an incommensurable topic.  This is very useful for new DMs, who might not have the experience to predict the effects of their rules decisions.4. The topic you're looking up does not contain a wrong answer.  This is unpredictable, and so the FAQ is not a good ground for claiming that the RAW says or does not say something.  #4 is why the FAQ is generally not welcome in the Rules forum.  It tends to stand in for the RAW when the poster can't locate the rule/doesn't agree with the rule but agrees with the FAQ's error/wants to reap the benefits of #2.  If the FAQ is being taken as identical to the RAW, but the FAQ is wrong, then the poster's argument is unsound.  It is therefore better to avoid citing the FAQ and instead cite the RAW as the ground for an argument.In summary, the FAQ is a useful tool for some, but shouldn't be trusted by rules lawyers.</blockquote>

Verification