The FAQ trumps the PHB

[Dimwhit]

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.

No, the FAQ would be the Supreme Court rulings in that analogy.

 

[Caliban]

No, the FAQ would be the Supreme Court rulings in that analogy.

Not really. I can't overrule the Supreme Court. I overrule the FAQ whenever I think it's wrong.

 

[IanB]

I agree that the errata/FAQ/rulebook order you describe was once correct. However it seems increasingly clear that the FAQ is the method they're going to use to deliver official rulings to us, much as it is in, say, DDM or MtG. The FAQs for those games are binding, rules-wise (as they must be for competitive games,) and the errata for the most part corrects actual errors.

D&D's model at this point doesn't look any different than that to me.

 

[RedShirtNo5]

Not really. I can't overrule the Supreme Court. I overrule the FAQ whenever I think it's wrong.

Sure, but you can overrule the core rules too if you think those are wrong.

Does anyone know the status of the FAQ for Living campaigns?

So, here is my new analogy: I'm a benevolent (or maybe rat-bastard) dictator. I can set the laws of my country by decree. I like the law of the Country of the Wizards, or maybe I'm too lazy to make up my own law, so usually I try to follow the law of CotW. Unfortunately, CotW has a very convoluted legal system, including both statutes and judicial decisions. Now, I often ask my advisors, "what is the law of CotW?" First, I want to make up my own mind for the laws of my country. For this, I like to hear lively debate about the merits of the statutes and whether the judicial decisions were correctly decided. But second, sometimes I actually visit CotW, and do need to follow their law (I might be a visitor, or I might actually be appointed as a local governor). So, if CotW treats its own supreme court decisions as simply advisory, leaving decisions to local governors, then that's one thing. If CotW expects local governors to follow those judicial decisions, that's different.

-RedShirt

 

[RedShirtNo5]

To potentially resume beating the horse ...

In a Living Greyhawk campaign, is the bastard sword a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon?

-RedShirt

The following rulebooks and editions are the official sources for the Living Greyhawk campaign.
The current printing of the following books and their published errata are considered core for the campaign:
• Players Handbook v.3.5*
• Dungeon Master’s Guide v.3.5*
• Monster Manual v.3.5*
• Living Greyhawk Journal – Campaign News (found in Dungeon Magazine)
• Living Greyhawk web articles found on the RPGA website
* Errata exists for this book. Consult the D&D website at www.wizards.com/dnd for details.

The following FAQs are official sources for the Living Greyhawk campaign. They are located on the D&D website at www.wizards.com/dnd. Rule variants in this document take priority over the FAQs listed below for the Living Greyhawk campaign.
• Main v.3.5 D&D FAQ
• Monsters FAQ
• Book of Vile Darkness FAQ
• Manual of the Planes FAQ
DMs may use “Sage Advice” to help clarify rules, but rulings are not official for the campaign until published in one of the FAQ’s listed above.
The Living Greyhawk FAQ as listed in this document is official for the campaign. Rule variants in this document take priority over the FAQs listed above for the Living Greyhawk.

 

[Hypersmurf]

To potentially resume beating the horse ...

In a Living Greyhawk campaign, is the bastard sword a one-handed weapon or a two-handed weapon?

And does acid damage ignore hardness?

-Hyp.

 

[Aaron L]

I thought that the bonus to disarm from a two handed weapom was because you had two hands on it, more than its size.

 

[tetsujin28]

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."

Yep. The FAQ has no place in my game. When they come out with errata that contains the same info, then I'll use it. Until then, the PH and errata are the primary and the official source, AFAIC.

 

[tetsujin28]

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.

Yup. And it's often just plain loopy.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I thought that the bonus to disarm from a two handed weapom was because you had two hands on it, more than its size.

In 3E, wielding a weapon with two hands gave a +4 bonus to disarm checks to avoid being disarmed. This would apply equally to a longsword or a greatsword wielded in two hands.

In 3.5, wielding a two-handed weapon gives a +4 bonus to all disarm checks.

A longsword is a one-handed weapon. Wielding it in two hands doesn't give a +4 bonus, since it's not a two-handed weapon. A greatsword is a two-handed weapon - the +4 applies. Contrast the disarm rule (+4 bonus to two-handed weapons) with, say, the 1.5x Str bonus to damage rule (applies to a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon wielded with two hands).

There was a distinct change to the disarm modifiers between 3E and 3.5.

-Hyp.