The FAQ trumps the PHB

[RedShirtNo5]

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

Yeah, to take the legal analogy, I was hoping there might either be some new textual or policy arguments that had developed since the last time this subject was fully debated. The standard "is not" argument seems to be that "the FAQ is so unreasonable that it doesn't deserve legitimacy". The standard "is too" argument seems to be "Wizards calls it official."

-RedShirt

 

[RedShirtNo5]

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.

This is probably close to my personal view. There are often statutory interpretations that I think are unreasonable (maybe by activist judges), but they are still the "law". I dislike the constitution analogy; IMO the constitution is so vague that it necessarily needs interpretation. But that's veering into politics.

-RedShirt

 

[Ranger REG]

This is probably close to my personal view. There are often statutory interpretations that I think are unreasonable (maybe by activist judges), but they are still the "law". I dislike the constitution analogy; IMO the constitution is so vague that it necessarily needs interpretation. But that's veering into politics.

-RedShirt

I dunno. Can you talk about legal process without going political in relation to this rules-heavy ruleset?

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

PHB + DMG + MM + Eratta = RAW.

All else is... recommendations.

But the FAQ is official recommendation and really as far as WotC is concerned FAQ and Sage responses to questions ARE THE SAME THING as RAW. If there is an unanswered question, an ambiguity, a direct contradiction anywhere in the RAW (at least insofar as you are defining that) then the FAQ and Sage are official interpretations and solutions. If "official" is unpalatable to you or still insufficient for your needs unless you're playing in a tournament or something there is nothing that keeps anyone from even adhering to RAW.

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

For any and all practical purposes, yes they are RAW.

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

The FAQ and Sage are imperfect. The RAW are imperfect. Nobody should be claiming they are. The entire point of publishing errata, of creating a FAQ, of maintaining ongoing Sage responses is to provide solutions that can be defaulted to on a common basis. If people want to disagree with any amount of all those "official" and RAW levels of being able to answer those questions, fine. But again, the reason they are there is to provide some kind of, "The buck stops here," finality.

Honestly, after having written the above, I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond. It's manifestly obvious what the purpose and usefulness is of errata, FAQ's, Sage Advice responses, and clear statements about priority of sources. These are good-faith efforts from WotC to provide OFFICIAL answers - which are required only when the DM is unable (such as because of time constraints) or unwilling to derive those answers personally. All those things are provided to ease that responsibility of DM's to get those very answers. Use them as you wish because there AREN'T any gaming police that are forcing you to accept even the PH as being some kind of Holy Writ graven in stone. But anyone who continues to carp about, "Well that's only OFFICIAL it's not the same thing as RAW," seems to me to simply be rules-lawyering and being argumentative for its own sake and are thus demonstrably NOT interested in assisting anyone with finding real, useful, or even in any way definitive answers to their questions.

 

[RedShirtNo5]

Well, another analogy would be that interpretation of a rule-light system (maybe C&C, although I haven't actually read it) is like constitutional interpretation.

-RedShirt

 

[Ovinomancer]

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

Yeah, to take the legal analogy, I was hoping there might either be some new textual or policy arguments that had developed since the last time this subject was fully debated. The standard "is not" argument seems to be that "the FAQ is so unreasonable that it doesn't deserve legitimacy". The standard "is too" argument seems to be "Wizards calls it official."

-RedShirt

Try this one: In my FLGS or my internet reseller of choice, the 'core' books are available for purchase. As are the various other WotC supplementary tomes. Theoretically, errata will eventually be incorporated into these books, not requiring a seperate file download. The Sage Advice, RotG, and FAQ are not available to purchase. Therefore, only printed material is RAW.

If it is not printed in a rule book (or meant to be printed as the errata is), then it is not primary source. This does not invalidate the others from making legitimate rulings, but they cannot contradict the primary source.

 

[Nim]

If it is not printed in a rule book (or meant to be printed as the errata is), then it is not primary source. This does not invalidate the others from making legitimate rulings, but they cannot contradict the primary source.

The core books and the errata are the sources for What The Rules SAY.

Sage Advice, the FAQ, etc, are more-or-less-official sources for What The Rules MEAN. They're interpretation. I don't think I've ever seen a FAQ answer that says 'the rule on page X is wrong; it ought to say (blah)'. That's what the errata is for. The FAQ is for 'here's an interpretation of how to resolve apparent conflicts between different rules, for cases that are rare enough we don't feel like editing the core rules to explicitly mention them'.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't think I've ever seen a FAQ answer that says 'the rule on page X is wrong; it ought to say (blah)'. That's what the errata is for.

Couple of quick examples:

3E Main FAQ, p60:
The description for the shield spell says its provides
three-quarters cover. Page 132 of the Player’s Handbook
says an attacker can't execute an attack of opportunity
against a character with one-half or better cover. So, a
spellcaster with a shield spell up is immune to attacks of
opportunity, even when casting spells in melee?

No. The spell description is erroneous. The spell grants a +7
cover bonus to Armor Class, not three-quarters cover. It does
not negate attacks of opportunity, nor does it provide any
saving throw bonuses. The spell's cover bonus to Armor Class
applies to any attacks opportunity made from the half of the
battlefield covered by the shield.

3.5 Main FAQ, p22:
The bastard sword, lance, and dwarven waraxe are all twohanded
weapons that can be used in one hand under the correct
circumstances (the bastard sword and dwarven waraxe are
shown on Table 7–5 as one-handed exotic weapons, but they’re
really two-handed weapons).

-Hyp.

 

[Brian Gibbons]

The FAQ tells you how Skip Williams would run a D&D home game. It collects his house rules and his interpretations of the core rules.

It is possible you will find it enjoyable to run your game the way Skip runs his. If so, feel free to use his FAQ in that spirit. You may also find that some of his house rules and interpretations are ill thought out, counter-intuitive or blatantly contravene the core rules in ways you do not find enjoyable. You should probably not use those aspects.

Unless you're playing in a tournament (and in that case, the rules probably already state whether or not they're playing Skip-style D&D), I'm not sure it matters how authoritative it is. If you like Skip's home rules, make them your own. If you like the way he interprets a rule you found unclear, use that as further information to help shape your own interpretation of how the rules work.

-- Brian.

 

[Caliban]

The FAQ tells you how Skip Williams would run a D&D home game. It collects his house rules and his interpretations of the core rules.

It is possible you will find it enjoyable to run your game the way Skip runs his. If so, feel free to use his FAQ in that spirit. You may also find that some of his house rules and interpretations are ill thought out, counter-intuitive or blatantly contravene the core rules in ways you do not find enjoyable. You should probably not use those aspects.

Unless you're playing in a tournament (and in that case, the rules probably already state whether or not they're playing Skip-style D&D), I'm not sure it matters how authoritative it is. If you like Skip's home rules, make them your own. If you like the way he interprets a rule you found unclear, use that as further information to help shape your own interpretation of how the rules work.

-- Brian.

Skip hasn't been the Sage for about a year now.