What do you consider generally unquestionable sources of rules interpretation?

[jodyjohnson]

The addition of the word 'unquestionable' excluded everything except 'errata' for me.

And occasionally even the errata might be questionable.

However normally I give Rules of the Game, FAQ/Sage Advice, designer posts, and other books authority in the game. Just not unquestionable authority.

Since the FAQ/Sage Advice has been changed after further review and the Rules of the Game sometimes amplifies/adds to the rules.

 

[IcyCool]

But if this were the case,

It is, Hypersmurf or a few others here probably have the exact quote handy, I don't

then it would indicate to me that WotC tacitly accepts that there may be different interpretations of a particular ruling and doesn't want to make an "official" statement as to which is correct. Both rulings would still be more "official" than something posted here though (IMO).

You are granting a level of coherence and intelligence to a coporate entity which has neither. However, I'm not saying the FAQ and Sage, and "Rules of the Game" aren't "official". I am saying that where they contradict the RAW, they are in error.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

I am saying that where they contradict the RAW, they are in error.

That's your opinion, and you're granted to it. But if WotC says otherwise, then what they say takes precedence in terms of an official answer.

Yes, I realize that if the PH says the sky is blue and the FAQ says it is green, then obviously there's a problem. But that doesn't mean non-WotC sources can give an "official" answer.

 

[Ferrix]

I voted for Errata and WotC books that aren't core.

I look at the FAQ/Sage Advice and Rules of the Game as specific peoples interpretations of written rules. A DM does the same thing, basically the FAQ/Sage/RotG to me, are more of semi-official DM's giving their interpretations.

What is printed comes first, Core Books, followed by non-core books, followed by errata (which is discretionary up to the DM).

The group I play with back home takes only what is written in WotC books. Errata doesn't even get brought in, FAQ/Sage/RotG aren't even afterthoughts.

 

[IcyCool]

That's your opinion, and you're granted to it. But if WotC says otherwise, then what they say takes precedence in terms of an official answer.

Yes, I realize that if the PH says the sky is blue and the FAQ says it is green, then obviously there's a problem. But that doesn't mean non-WotC sources can give an "official" answer.

Which leads us to this problem. WotC says that the Core books and Errata are the primary rules sources, and take precedence. Now, if the FAQ (not a primary rules source) says the sky is green and the PH says the sky is blue, then according to WotC, the sky is blue.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Which leads us to this problem. WotC says that the Core books and Errata are the primary rules sources, and take precedence. Now, if the FAQ (not a primary rules source) says the sky is green and the PH says the sky is blue, then according to WotC, the sky is blue.

Correct. They take precedence. And you can go to the FAQ if you want an official (or less official) alternative. Or you can go to EN World if you want an unofficial alternative.

Really, it's all up to the individual what rules they choose to use in their games or not. WotC has said this time and time again. But when it comes to what is "more official", I'll take something from WotC employees on a WotC website before someone else's. That doesn't mean I won't house rule, or use someone else's ruling, or whatever. But it also doesn't mean that I'll pretend what I'm using is "official" when it isn't.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It is, Hypersmurf or a few others here probably have the exact quote handy, I don't

The best example at present:

The 3.5 Main FAQ says that acid and sonic damage ignore hardness.

The 3.5 Main FAQ also says that hardness applies to acid and sonic damage.

-Hyp.

 

[frankthedm]

Hype Interprets rules rather than makes them up / chages / adds them. Now, unlike some folks, i feel a [very] few of wotc's Judicial Legislations were good/ made common sence, but that doesn't make them interpretations of the rules.

 

[Sammael]

I prefer Hyp's interpretations and base my own rulings (and house rules, in cases when I find the interpretation doesn't fit my DM style) on them.

 

[Altamont Ravenard]

I trust (in no particular order) Hypersmurf, dcollins and shilsen. And Patryn when I have to.

AR