Sage advice and some recent topics

[Hypersmurf]

I wouldn't be surprised if it never made it into the eratta. Putting it into Sage Advice means it ill amke it into the FAW, meaning its official, with or without erratta. It definitely should mke it into both places, but no need to hold our breaths.

But unless the FAQ actually gives an errata note such as dcollins composed above, it will contradict what's written in the PHB...

... and one could make a case that by the Primary Source rule, the PHB rule takes precedence. Just like Divine Might... when the FAQ contradicts DotF, DotF is the primary source.

If the FAQ had stated "The paragraph in the Feats section that states that activating a Divine Feat is always a standard action is erroneous; remove that paragraph", and then stated the activating Divine Might is a free action, then there would no longer be any conflict, and the FAQ would be correct.

But since it didn't, the two rules go head-to-head, and the Primary Source has Monster Truck tires, crushing the FAQ mercilessly, much as a bootheel might grind a cigarette into the dust.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

Okay, Hyp, you're right. I think the Sage's ruling is very reasonable, and I hope it is worded so as to be errata.

 

[dcollins]

I wouldn't be surprised if it never made it into the eratta. Putting it into Sage Advice means it ill amke it into the FAW, meaning its official...

Yeah, yeah, it's all "official". Everything's "official".

Nothing against you, James, at all, but the marketing campaign by which WOTC puts "official" on everything is logically incoherent. To date, no WOTC spokesperson has been able to explain how everything in Dragon can be "official" all at the same time.

 

[James McMurray]

Why can't they be official all at the same time?

Everything in Dragon is a variant optional rule (except the Sage Advice column, which is specifically noted as being official answers to rules questions). If two articles have different rules for the same thing, you just have to pick which of those two optional rules you want to use.

Out of curiosity, how many WotC spokespeople have you interviewed on the subject?

 

[jgsugden]

Out of curiosity, how many WotC spokespeople have you interviewed on the subject?

Enough. And by that, I mean he probably hasn't interviewed any WotC employees on the subject.

You don't need an interview to think for yourself and realize that there are contradictions.

 

[dcollins]

Out of curiosity, how many WotC spokespeople have you interviewed on the subject?

A few months ago, in the ENWorld General Forum, the WOTC spokesperson (can't think of the name, but post-Valterra) was asked if Dragon under Paizo Publishing was really "official". He confirmed "yes". When asked to explain how that could be interpreted with regard to WOTC core publications, he had no comment.

 

[Epametheus]

Hmmm.

It had never even occurred to me that Sunder might not be substitutable for a normal attack the way Disarm is.

Sounds like the Sage is simply fixing a mistake.

 

[James McMurray]

A few months ago, in the ENWorld General Forum, the WOTC spokesperson (can't think of the name, but post-Valterra) was asked if Dragon under Paizo Publishing was really "official". He confirmed "yes". When asked to explain how that could be interpreted with regard to WOTC core publications, he had no comment.

No comment as in he never responded, or as in he replied with "no comment"? If its the former, its quite possible that he never read the question.

Was the question: "Is Dragon Core?" or something to that effect? If so, why was it even asked? The obvious answer is No. It doesn't say Core Rulebook anywhere on its cover. Its official D&D, but not Core D&D (much like the splatbooks).