The FAQ trumps the PHB

[Pinotage]

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

Exactly. I enjoy the rules debates as much as the next guy, but unless you insist for some obscure reason on having everything official and nothing else, just go with whatever floats your boat and makes the most sense to you. The FAQ is a useful tool, as is Rules of the Game or other articles that attempt to clarify or interpret the rules. Is it official or a primary source? I don't really care, as long as it aids making up my and my groups mind on how to play the game. I found some really useful things in there, and some really horrible things, but I don't think it should be discounted in any way because of the errors it makes. It does a lot of things right as well.

Pinotage

 

[Felix]

the FAQ is official recommendation

Yup. Sure is.

If "official" is unpalatable to you

No problem with "official" here. I agree that it sure is Official.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering to respond.

Nor I; I agree with half of what you say.

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.

Didn't say they were holy writ.

Didn't say they weren't official.

Didn't say the FAQ wasn't useful and in good faith.

Who's the dastard saying these things, because it surely isn't me.

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.

And yet...

The FAQ and Sage are imperfect.

We both agree on this. So because we have imperfections running around, it is necessary to decide when the FAQ contradicts instead of clarifies, which source to use as a rule.

The purpose of the FAQ is to clarify. When it does do this, the core books are in harmony with the FAQ and there's no problem; they agree with each other.

When the FAQ does not clarify, but rather contradicts and thereby creates new rules, it is performing something other than its purpose. The FAQ is not a rules source; it gives advice on how to interpret a rules source. Very much like how a legislature can pass law and a judge interprets it. Surely you would not suggest that these two functions

ARE THE SAME THING

Would you?

Both are important. Both are official. Both are with good will. Both bring to mind visions of fluffy bunnies and rainbow horizons. But they are not the same. And no need for shouting man, we can all hear.

being argumentative for its own sake and are thus demonstrably NOT interested in assisting anyone

The question is, which do you believe when the FAQ contradicts the Rules (as I've defined them in post #10)? I have proposed that one should always disregard the secondary source when it contradicts the RAW. Why? Because it's secondary. Not primary. And however helpful it might be, it's not RAW.

What does it matter, since this is a game anyway? I just don't like forgiving other people's mistakes when they erroniously alter the mechanics of my game. Maybe you're really easy-going about it, but when the FAQ is wrong, it's wrong, and that wrong rule is going to stay out of my game. So I recommend others do the same.

As for "helping others", since when has altruism become the guiding principle of rules disputes? People can use their brains; the rules are all there to be read and understood. Clarifications are available for folks who want them. Message boards talk about things 24-7. I monitor myself by making sure I follow the rules, and I hope others do likewise. I could very well be a mean, ornery, callous and spiteful person bitter at the cards life has dealt me, but wether I am or no, that won't change the fact that if you're going to have something with rules, you need a heirarchy of authority. Something has to trump something else. I suggest the original rules set trumps clarifications, since the purpose of clarifications is to always and everywhere agree with the rules, only to make them easier to understand.

---

@Borlon

My apologies, you are correct. I should have said "Core RAW". Other rulebooks like the Compleat series is a set of Variant rules that, after acceptance by the DM, become RAW.

 

[Ranger REG]

What does it matter, since this is a game anyway? I just don't like forgiving other people's mistakes when they erroniously alter the mechanics of my game. Maybe you're really easy-going about it, but when the FAQ is wrong, it's wrong, and that wrong rule is going to stay out of my game. So I recommend others do the same.

Well, there are certain things in this world I cannot forgive, which goes against one of my personal values (don't ask). But not forgiving the Sage Advice? I'm sorry, but as much as I am a fan of this game and RPGs, I'm not that too obsessed with getting the rules perfect.

If the FAQ is wrong, then instead of crying foul and rants to the public but the Sage, do the lawful thing and correspond/rebut with the Sage as maturely as you can be an adult (unless you have a failing grade in debates).

As for "helping others", since when has altruism become the guiding principle of rules disputes? People can use their brains; the rules are all there to be read and understood. Clarifications are available for folks who want them. Message boards talk about things 24-7. I monitor myself by making sure I follow the rules, and I hope others do likewise. I could very well be a mean, ornery, callous and spiteful person bitter at the cards life has dealt me, but wether I am or no, that won't change the fact that if you're going to have something with rules, you need a heirarchy of authority. Something has to trump something else. I suggest the original rules set trumps clarifications, since the purpose of clarifications is to always and everywhere agree with the rules, only to make them easier to understand.

The reality is, if WotC R&D couldn't find the time to update the errata, I doubt they can find the time to check Andy's column.

 

[Felix]

Ranger REG, when I say I won't forgive mistakes I mean that I will not use that ruling in my game. Using the rule is forgiving their mistake. I'm not damning them to perdition for this sort of thing, I'm just not instituting all of their rulings.

And it's not as if I haven't said that they can't be helpful... they just arn't always are.

If the FAQ is wrong, then instead of crying foul and rants to the public but the Sage, do the lawful thing and correspond/rebut with the Sage as maturely as you can be an adult (unless you have a failing grade in debates).

Wether or not the FAQ is right or wrong, there still remains the question I was concerning myself with: does the FAQ trump the original rules? No amount of talking to the Sage will yield that answer. And that's the answer we're trying to find here, right?

 

[Nim]

Couple of quick examples:

The Shield example is a good one; that should have been errata, not FAQ. The bastard sword one doesn't bother me because the text is clear - it is either a two-handed or one-handed weapon depending on your feats. The table isn't wrong, it just only lists one of the two options. I'm inclined to agree with the FAQ that it would have made more sense to list the other one, as it's the default, but that's okay. Either way, not actually a rules change, just a question of presentation.

 

[Artoomis]

As near as I can tell, here's what happened at WotC:

1. Errata was the only official place to actually change the rules within a published book. The FAQ was to clarify points of confusion as needed or address common questions even if the answer was clear from the rules. This was actually published at one point as the way WotC would use errata and the FAQ.

2. Over time, WotC began using the FAQ to actually issue rule changes, without calling them that.

Number 2 has never been officially published by WotC as the new way to do business for the rules as near as I can tell, but that does seem to be what's happened.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The bastard sword one doesn't bother me because the text is clear - it is either a two-handed or one-handed weapon depending on your feats.

That's not how I read the text at all (hence I dispute your claim that the text is clear).

The way it's written, the bastard sword (for an appropriately-sized character) is always a one-handed weapon; it's just a one-handed weapon that you can only wield two-handed without the EWP.

There's a difference between 'wield two-handed' and 'considered a two-handed weapon'. You gain all the benefits of wielding a one-handed weapon in two hands (under the rules for one-handed weapons, the Power Attack feat, etc), but not the benefits of having a two-handed weapon (increased hit points, bonus to Disarm, etc).

-Hyp.

 

[IanB]

Logically it just doesn't make sense to me for the FAQ to not take precedence; it is the later material, published in order to clarify the original material.

It strikes me as saying that amendments to the constitution don't count, because, well, they contradict the constitution.

 

[Caliban]

Logically it just doesn't make sense to me for the FAQ to not take precedence; it is the later material, published in order to clarify the original material.

It strikes me as saying that amendments to the constitution don't count, because, well, they contradict the constitution.

Some people see the Errata as amendments to the Core Rules, while the FAQ is one judges ruling on a specific situation. It may set a precedent, but it doesn't have the strength of an amendment.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Logically it just doesn't make sense to me for the FAQ to not take precedence; it is the later material, published in order to clarify the original material.

It strikes me as saying that amendments to the constitution don't count, because, well, they contradict the constitution.

To use your analogy, errata would be the amendments, and the FAQ would be laws passed by congress. Most of the time, the laws and the Constitution (with amendments) get along just fine, but when they don't, the Constitution wins by default.