-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
unfortunately not Finally settled, sunder and attacks of opp
- Thread starter bestone
- Start date
Hypersmurf
Moderatarrrrh...
bestone said:
Oh, well, if Dictionary.com says so, that's different.
I'll have to check what it says for 'Wish'.
-Hyp.
Yes, there is, But can you state with absolute impunity just what that reason is? Cause you could assume that it is an awnsering of specific questions that may not need rule changes, just clerifications, Or you could state that it is an errata comprised of faqs.
Or you could probably make other such assumptions.
Or you could state the way i assume you believe full well it works, that its seperate because its not meant to work as such
Or you could probably make other such assumptions.
Or you could state the way i assume you believe full well it works, that its seperate because its not meant to work as such
Dont get me wrong, im not stating that the faq is errata as mentioned under the primary source rule. Im stating i can see it being deduced as such
I dont have enough experience dealing with either to know what would be true about this subject. Im just wondering why even tho it says its official, and even tho its by definition is errata. Why is it considered "unofficial" and therefor an irrelevant waste of space on the wizards site
I dont have enough experience dealing with either to know what would be true about this subject. Im just wondering why even tho it says its official, and even tho its by definition is errata. Why is it considered "unofficial" and therefor an irrelevant waste of space on the wizards site
Yeah well, that doesnt mean that the faq isnt still official errata, and thus takes precedence.
- I am in no way drawing a claim to have this win my argument (as i realise that even tho the faq can be defined as official errata, it probably wasnt meant to be used as such)
-- I just want clerification on what i asked
- I am in no way drawing a claim to have this win my argument (as i realise that even tho the faq can be defined as official errata, it probably wasnt meant to be used as such)
-- I just want clerification on what i asked
Last edited:
What we're actually all doing at the moment is feverishly thumbing through our bookmarked PHBs and DMGs trying to find the order-of-primary-sources rules.
from the (then) current version of the PHB errata file on the WotC site, dated 02/17/2006:
Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. Note: The most recent updates are shaded like this.
Since the FAQ isn't the official Errata file --
it's a file, and it's official, and it's errata by the dictionary definition (but not Errata -- consider that spells that do extra damage to Cold creatures don't do anything extra to cold creatures; we're looking for the noun phrase "errata file", not just a file which contains what dictionary.com defines as errata), it's not anything that can trump the PHB.
Same thing applies to customer service replies, author interviews, and (perhaps) humorously, direct revelation from the deity of your choice.
from the (then) current version of the PHB errata file on the WotC site, dated 02/17/2006:
Errata Rule: Primary Sources
When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities. Note: The most recent updates are shaded like this.
Since the FAQ isn't the official Errata file --
it's a file, and it's official, and it's errata by the dictionary definition (but not Errata -- consider that spells that do extra damage to Cold creatures don't do anything extra to cold creatures; we're looking for the noun phrase "errata file", not just a file which contains what dictionary.com defines as errata), it's not anything that can trump the PHB.
Same thing applies to customer service replies, author interviews, and (perhaps) humorously, direct revelation from the deity of your choice.
Last edited:
Similar Threads
