What do you consider generally unquestionable sources of rules interpretation?

[diaglo]

none of the above.

i seek the advice of the referee for all things concerning the campaign.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The 'Smurf is right behind errata in the poll!! Go 'Smurf!!

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

Since you seem to ignore "officialness" when determining which rules to use when there's a contradiction (as most sensible people seem to do, choosing to go with what works best for them), what does it matter whose opinion is official?

Because an official answer is one that can be falled back upon (even if neither party likes the official answer) when two or more disputing parties can't otherwise agree. It's the "trump" card so to speak.

I'm sure I could find some kind of neurologist or psychiatrist who could come up with a "better" way for Will saves to work, but that's beside the point b/c whatever he or she thinks is NOT official. It might make more sense and it might be "better", but unless WotC accepts it and states such then it still isn't official. Just b/c you can put forward an amazingly logical argument why passing Go should net you $150 instead of $200 in Monopoly, that doesn't mean your house rule is anything other than an interpretation/alternative ruling/house rule.

Of course, none of this means you can't choose to use the alternative, "sensible" ruling (btw, who determines what is "sensible"?); just don't call it official, cuz it's not.

I use house rules and other peoples' interpretations all the time and I don't see anything wrong with it. But it's not "official" and I would never call it such, regardless of how much or how little someone has faith in WotC.

Oh, and I wouldn't consider anything official if it can't be found in print on a WotC asset.

 

[Arnwyn]

What text will you let stand, even if you don't agree with it?

Given the quoted question, my vote (which was sadly left out in the poll) is "none". If I don't agree with it, it's gone.

Given the poll question, I voted:
- Errata.
- Any WOTC books other the the PHB & DMG.

 

[Mistwell]

Rules of the Game - The core books are the starting place for the rules, and I don't question them as far as intepreting what the rule means, unless they are modified or explained by...
Main Rules FAQ/Sage Advice - Two good sources of rules intepretation and clarification...
Errata - Another good source of rules clarification and interpretation
WOTC books other then PHB & DMG - Only when they modify a rule or offer more clarity on a rule, such as updating a feat
Hypersmurf - No clue who he is really. Seen him around I think...

 

[Asmo]

Hypersmurf.

Asmo

 

[Drowbane]

The DM at the time. Period. Old skool babY!

In times of war, kill the Rules Lawyers first!

 

[Gansk]

At worst the comments made by WotC employees on/in WotC products are still more "official" than what you read on generic internet sites; at best those comments are in fact official.

None of this means mistakes can't be made. But if they're such big mistakes (and just b/c people disagree with them doesn't make them mistakes ), WotC would presumably correct them.

In an ideal world, yes. In reality, WotC does not go to the lengths of identifying and correcting mistakes as well as some people in this forum. They copied the MM III errata straight from John Cooper's review here on ENWorld. When some people here pointed out that John Cooper made a few mistakes, the errata was not corrected at WotC.

 

[Ogrork the Mighty]

In an ideal world, yes. In reality, WotC does not go to the lengths of identifying and correcting mistakes as well as some people in this forum. They copied the MM III errata straight from John Cooper's review here on ENWorld. When some people here pointed out that John Cooper made a few mistakes, the errata was not corrected at WotC.

That's all well and good and I totally agree that the effort made by EN World posters often surpasses that of WotC. But that effort still isn't official. That's my whole point. You could be the most knowledgeable rules guru in the entire universe and it doesn't matter one lick when it comes to the fact that your opinions still aren't official. They may make sense, you may love 'em, other people may love 'em, they may be "better" than the official rules... but they still aren't official. So if someone disagrees with you, the only trump card is the actual official ruleset from WotC.

 

[Mistwell]

I have to say that the whole concept of RAW is a bit silly. The rules were sometimes never intended to function as written.

For example, I know of not one single DM who has ever or would ever interpret the Strand of Prayer Beads cost entry for missing beads as it is written. And no errata or house rule is necessary for everyone to know that a normal Strand of Prayer Beads that is missing the Karma and Smiting beads does not actually give 11,000 gold to the character (or is free, if you think the negative number doesn't grants gold). You know from looking at the entry that, despite how it is written, you are supposed to deduct the gp value of missing beads from the "greater" entry, even though it doesn't say that. I don't need errata to tell me that's the "official" way it is supposed to work, and neither does anyone else. The context makes it obvious despite the actual rule as written.

At some point it is assumed the reader of the rules is a human being with basic comprehension of the English language and a basic level of common sense. The rules are intended to be viewed in a context, and not a vacuum. People are not supposed to be mindless slaves to the rules as written when those rules don't actually make any sense as written, but can easily make sense when considering the context of the rule.