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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 3220306" data-attributes="member: 111">What's REALLY wrong with the FAQ?Okay, so what's REALLY the problem with the FAQ?  It seems to me it serves its purpose fairly well - it answers questions often asked about the rules.The biggest actual problem with the FAQ has been the silent expansion of its purpose to include issuing ruling at variance with the published rules.Its purpose really should be limited to two things:1.  Explaining rules to folks who might have trouble understanding them.  If a question comes up frequently then, even if the answer is clear in the rules, it is legitimately posted in the FAQ.  There are LOTS of these in the FAQ.2.  If the rule is ambiguous, and I submit that any rule that is strongly argues on both sides on this board is ambiguous pretty much by definition, then a clarifying entry in the FAQ is appropriate and should be treated as the "official" rule with the same weight as the rule books themselves.  Monks being allowed to take Improved Natural Attack is one example of that.Unfortunately, WotC has also published a few items that looks a lot like errata, a few that have been flat-out wrong, and a few that have contradicted themselves within the FAQ.  This has lowers the credibility of the FAQ, even those most errors have been corrected.  In the eyes of some folks, this lowered credibility has advanced to the point that any argument that uses the term "FAQ" in it anywhere is immediately dismissed out-of-hand.I see that as unfortunate and misguided.There are three approaches to understanding the rules, all of them legimimate but not really compatiable with each other:1.  An analysis of what was published in the books.  Period.   In this case errata and the FAQ might be considered, but cannot be used to win any arguments.  This approach rejects the errata.2.  An analysis including the errata.  This appraoches rejects the FAQ completely.3.  An analysis of what is the controlling "offical" rules.  This anaylisis includes the FAQ - but the FAQ should be viewed critically because it its known flaws.To me, the first two are stricly academic exercises with little real value other than keeping one enternained and mentally fit - becasue they reject the offical rules interpretations from WotC - the book publisher.  The third approach, however, actually has some practical in-game value if one is trying to run an "offical" game.So, what value is there is being "offical?"1.  Predictability from game to game.2.  Consistency in WotC-sponsored events.3.  A truly common baseline from which to vary (a "base line" from which to make up your "house rules".Unfortunately, there is a general lack of agreement on my position, which means the validity of the FAQ is constantly argued on this site.It seems to me, though, that no one should be encouraging new posters to totally disregard the FAQ.  That is a disservice.  Encouraging people to think crticially about the FAQ is one thing, encourages folks to totally disregard an "offical" source is quite another.</blockquote>

Verification