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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 3226547" data-attributes="member: 22424">My take is that the FAQ has been wrong often enough to be considered an unreliable source. Therefore, when making a ruling, I will consider what it says, but I won't give it any more weight than any other source. Specifically, if the FAQ contradicts the RAW in my PHB/DMG/MM, the FAQ will be ignored.The way I think the various documents should work is as follows:Errata: This should provide corrections for the RAW. In particular, where the RAW are contradictory, or a line is left out, these should be errata (examples: sundering magic weapons; XP penalties for PrCs). The errata should not change the RAW (the polymorph issue should not have been in errata IMO).FAQ: This document should answer questions about the RAW. If the rules are unclear, they should be clarified. When there is a gap in the rules, it is acceptable for the FAQ to fill that gap. The FAQ should not change the RAW.Both errata and FAQ should be peer-reviewed documents, to ensure correctness. Each FAQ answer should include page references for its rulings, and should have a note indicating who is the source of that ruling. (Errors in errata and FAQ are inevitable, and somewhat acceptable, but steps should be taken to minimise errors, which peer reviewing and making the author traceable will help to do.)As I noted above, I don't believe either the errata or the FAQ is the place to change the rules. If WotC want to change the rules for their RPGA "Living..." campaigns, they should include the rule changes in the guides to those campaigns. If they want to change the rules for general use, there is a time and a place to do that: a new edition.Just my opinion, of course.</blockquote>

Verification