The FAQ trumps the PHB

[Len]

The problem with some people saying 'if it's not in the errata, it isn't official' is that Wizard doesn't update the errata regularly.

That's true, but doesn't change the fact that the Primary Sources rule you quoted specifically mentions the errata files and not the FAQ or Sage Advice or RotG. Part of the reason the errata are not updated frequently is that it's not full of contradictions and arbitrary rule changes, which is a good thing in my book.

My group finds it easier and less confusing to make our rules decisions based on the rulebooks + errata.

 

[Infiniti2000]

The FAQ is OFFICIAL RULES CLARIFICATION. Errata is for printing errors.

Not exactly. The errata is actually for changing the rules. The original rules on righteous might and divine favor were not printing errors. They changed them in the errata to actually alter the rules. So, if WotC wants a rule changed, they must issue errata. If a rule is unclear, they can offer an interpretation (and call it official), but it's only an interpretation. I say this because when (not if) the FAQ contradicts the rules, there's a problem and the FAQ is clearly the secondary source (or is it tertiary) to the rulebooks.

 

[Borlon]

Official source /= Primary Source
FAQ /= Eratta

PHB + DMG + MM + Eratta = RAW.

All else is... recommendations.


The FAQ can create precident in the interpretation of rules, but it does not create rules; thus it is not part of the RAW.

It is a guide, nothing more important that that. And imperfect.

I don't agree that the RAW is defined as narrowly as this. I think what the sources for the RAW are depends on what rules you are talking about.

For example, if someone has a question about material in the Complete Divine, can they not ask for a ruling based on the RAW? For CD, RAW includes what is in the CD, and in any erratta that has been issued for it. If the relevant information to CD material is found in CW or CA, would not that information be as much the RAW as the CD stuff? The Complete Series should be of equally authoritative value when adjudicating questions on material from the Complete Series.

With all due respect to Dimwhit, I am not sure that it has been established that the FAQ always addresses genuinely ambiguous or contradictory rulings in the RAW. Or that the FAQ is itself always unambiguous and free from contradictions. I could certainly understand how, in particular situations, people could legitimately differ from the FAQ and still play the RAW.

 

[Dimwhit]

I'll say this. Debates over the rules are ENTIRELY the fault of WotC. If they wanted, they could resolve all these questions in a manner that would satisfy everyone (if that means updating the errata as frequently as they do the FAQ, so be it). But they're either too lazy or to inept to do it. It's fairly annoying.

I understand their attitude is that if there's a rules dispute, decide as a group (or DM) how to handle it. But when a group is split, there is only one way to do it that won't upset people, and that's an official call by those who made the game in the first place. It's bad business the way they do it now, IMO.

 

[Shadowdweller]

I'll say this. Debates over the rules are ENTIRELY the fault of WotC. If they wanted, they could resolve all these questions in a manner that would satisfy everyone (if that means updating the errata as frequently as they do the FAQ, so be it). But they're either too lazy or to inept to do it. It's fairly annoying.

This sort of statement always makes me groan (no offense intended, mind).

The problem is that the rules are the consensus of NUMEROUS individuals who don't always agree and are rarely in the same place with the time to answer questions. Language is often by it's very nature vague or ambiguous. That's why we hundreds of trained professionals (at least here in the US) who have gone through rigorous educations to INTERPRET the laws. Expecting the same thing of a bunch of game-writers is a bit unrealistic.

 

[Crothian]

This sort of statement always makes me groan (no offense intended, mind).

The problem is that the rules are the consensus of NUMEROUS individuals who don't always agree and are rarely in the same place with the time to answer questions. Language is often by it's very nature vague or ambiguous. That's why we hundreds of trained professionals (at least here in the US) who have gone through rigorous educations to INTERPRET the laws. Expecting the same thing of a bunch of game-writers is a bit unrealistic.

However, expecting them to answer the questions in clear ways that do not contridict the rules is and should be expected.

 

[Mistwell]

In my view, the core books + errata are like statutes passed by Congress. The FAQ is judgements handed down by the Supreme Court. Sage advice is judgements handed down by district Appelate Courts. Core + eratta + FAQ are all the official rules and in equal standing. FAQ should trump it all if there is any doubt about the interpretation of a rule, as it is the official clarification of the rules.

 

[RedShirtNo5]

The FAQ and Sage are not errata. They are therefore not primary sources. It is possible that the OP was confusing "primary source" and "official source."

I'm quoting this one not to single it out, but just as representative of several responses.

1. Is the FAQ a rules source at all?
The attempt to distinguish between rule clarifications and rule sources is doomed to failure. Any rule clarification is itself a rule.
If I say, "Fighting in this way" refers to "if you wield a second weapon in your off hand", rather than "get one extra attack per round", the result is one rule rather than another.

2. Official versus non-official
First, it is not clear that there is any such thing as an "official source". Does the errata or DMG use the term "official"? When people distinguish between the printed books as "official" and the FAQ as not official, they are merely using their version of the primary source rule. That is, their interpretaion of the primary source rule is, e.g., that "clarifications" are not "rules" or that printed text takes precendence over an electronic document.
Second, if anything is "official", the FAQ sure is. It is labelled by WotC as official.

3. What can be a primary source?
According to the errata, "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct."
The errata does not not limit what can or can't be a primary source. The errata gives an example of what to do if there is a contradiction between PHB, DMG or MM. But this does not exclude the possibility of other sources being primary for other situations.

Again, that's all I've got time for now. Thanks to everyone, including those who take a contrary position, for providing interesting responses.

-Redshirt

 

[Dimwhit]

However, expecting them to answer the questions in clear ways that do not contridict the rules is and should be expected.

Yeah, that's pretty much my thought. Just said more diplomatically.

 

[Ranger REG]

"FAQ trumps PHB."
"Is not."
"Is too."

Meh. Use reasonable judgment. It's been a year since WotC officially update some errata prior to 2004, some of which are posted in the FAQ. Not that the FAQ is wrong (some of the time), but WotC is too lazy to do any errata with past product unless it is a newly released product.

WotC didn't even have official errata & FAQ released for d20 Modern. We had to have one diligent fan to compile errata posted on the messageboards by the designers (and whatever found on Bullet Points web column) for the rest of us gamers.

Sighs. Just use reasonable judgment. Unless you're playing in tournaments, just play D&D your group's way.