What do you think of the faq?

[Jhaelen]

The FAQ should be ignored with a vengeance. While it has the occasional good answer, it also has answers blatantly against RAW and other answers less clear if they go against RAI, but are atrocious none the less.

Interestingly that is exactly how I think about the CO boards

Given a choice between a reasonable, likely interpretation and an outrageous, overpowered and utterly broken interpretation, CO boarders tend to prefer the latter.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

Interestingly that is exactly how I think about the CO boards

Given a choice between a reasonable, likely interpretation and an outrageous, overpowered and utterly broken interpretation, CO boarders tend to prefer the latter.

Oh, I agree on that completely. I love optimization, but i stick to practical "things I'd expect a reasonable person to find acceptable" optimization. I really do hate it when CO people argue that since the RAW isn't clear, it's ok to go with the more ridiculous/powerful interpretation. While the posters may not intend it to be such, I view anything like that as theoretical optimization (stuff that just won't happen in a real game, but is still fun to think about sometimes, like Pun Pun or any infinite loop abuse).

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Ignore, for the moment, that the DM is the final arbiter of the rules.

This is a bad way to start since it gets right to the heart of the issue at hand.

It seems many people see the faq as the definitive answer to the rules. I am beginning to question whether we should or not.

The FAQ is incorporated into WotC's approach to dealing with rules questions. If pressed they might let it slip that you could do what you like with the rules, but the overwhelming emphasis was that their answers to questions were the official and correct answers, and that you should consult them before doing something so brazen as coming up with an answer on your own.

If the D&D rules FAQ isn't treated like other FAQs. The way WotC used both the FAQ and Sage Advice is as a permanent, expanding list of NEW rules to fill in constantly-revealed omissions, contradictions, errors, or to just flatly re-write whatever wasn't working. All, of course, presented in a way to more easily let people believe that this was how it was meant to be all along.

Note that the official errata was more along the lines of correcting typos and references that were in genuine error that had failed to be altered in the original process of editing multiple versions into the original documented rules. It was the FAQ and especially Sage Advice that continued to expand the rules themselves beyond the RAW.

Rules interpretation in earlier versions was supposed to be something handled specifically by the DM. Rules simply could not be created to cover everything (and Gary was smart enough not to try) so part of what made a good DM was gaining the experience at rules adjudication, learning to make such decisions for himself in the middle of a game and craft his own long-term solutions tailored to fit ones own game. This was replaced by a mindset where players would end up telling the DM how to run the game by waving official rules at him. WotC may not have set out with that intention but that's frankly what they got. Their approach to answering D&D rules questions was taken from their approach to handling rules for their CCG's. The error was in choosing to overlook the fact that the CCG's were directly, unalterably competititve games whereas D&D was born and bred as a cooperative exercise and only secondarily adaptible to competitive tournaments where unified sets of OFFICIAL rules to be applied over multiple games actually mattered.

the_orc_within asked that if you somehow manage to grapple a dragon, can you prevent his BW by keeping his mouth shut. Researching an answer in the faq, I found a similar question. Someone wanted to know if a Dragonfire Adept could still use his BW when grappled. The answer was that the RC did not list a SU as something you could do while grappling and they said to check with your DM. I thought that was kind of a wimpy answer.

Actually, that should have been a sensible INITIAL response to have been followed by a suggested solution.

I guess what I've always looked for is a clarification of RAI, but now I begin to question their answers.

There's nothing wrong with using the FAQ as a resource to inform your decision-making process, but no, I STRENUOUSLY believe that treating either it or Sage Advice as anything more than well-meaning suggestions is to do a disservice to yourself and your players by not actively honing your own skills as a DM.