Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="atom crash" data-source="post: 3359799" data-attributes="member: 22162">Further, let's suppose a hypothetical situation in which this mistake in interpretation was made in one source and then propogated in a dozen other sources afterward. Like, say, imagine a world in which it showed up erroneously in the FAQ one day and was used as the basis for a bunch of later articles, including an article by a contributor to Dragon magazine that collected many rules useful for a single character class. This doesn't establish a definitive argument for that interpretation, since if all those subsequent sources -- whether there are 1 or 100 of them -- are in conflict with the original (or, shall we say "primary") source, i.e. the PHB, the primary source trumps them.I could try to sneak an article past a Dragon magazine editor that says Two-Weapon Fighting doesn't require the Full Attack Action, for example, and if it gets through, that doesn't mean I've now changed the rule. It just means that I made a mistake and the editor failed to catch it. Repeating an incorrect ruling many times won't make it right. In other words, sheer volume of citations doesn't hold much water if they're all wrong.Only the officlal errata has the ability to change a rule or create new rulings.</blockquote>