What Specifically is Wrong with the FAQ?

[Drawmack]

Here is an idea... After Complete Scoundrel comes out, they should make and sell a Complete FAQ and Complete Errata book

This is and interesting idea because then the FAQ and errata could have a FAQ and an errata which eventually could be published....

boy talk about generating product.

 

[Drawmack]

I remember reading the Dave Noonan has had his hand at Sage Advice a few times recently.

Also, put me down as one who thinks what is wrong with the FAQ is that it is bloated. WotC should put out a consolidated FAQ for the Core books, and a separate consolidated FAQ for all others. At this point throwing them all together is a hinderance more than a benefit.

How about sticking the FAQ into a database and hooking it to a simple pdf generation program. Then a person can go in an select just the books/rules that they want the FAQ for and generate a custom FAQ that fits their library.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

This is begging for internal contradictions as each author introduces his own confused ideas about "universal" rule issues.

Why would a splatbook author be writing about the core rules? That's the sage's job.

 

[Iku Rex]

Why would a splatbook author be writing about the core rules? That's the sage's job.

You're assuming that every question that might touch onto the core rules will be put in the "Sage" section. That's not a very likely assumption.

A few examples (chosen quickly - I'm sure I could find better examples by carefully combing the FAQs):

How is the body feeder weapon quality supposed to work?
Do the temporary hit points from the weapon stack? The
same question applies to mind feeder weapons and to spell
effects, such as vampiric touch.
Temporary hit points from a body feeder weapon stack with
each other, but not with temporary hit points from any other
source. Likewise, temporary psionic points from a mind feeder
weapon stack, but not with temporary psionic points from any
other source.
In general, any effect that allows you to gain temporary hit
points over time allows you to stack those points, but only
those points. For example, if you use the vampiric touch spell,
the temporary hit points you gain from that particular casting of
the spell stack. They don’t stack with the temporary hit points
you get from an aid spell, nor would the effects of two
vampiric touch or aid spells stack. If you were to use two body
feeder weapons (or two mind feeder weapons), you could not
stack the temporary points from the two weapons.

A question about a psionic weapon ability? Hand it to Bruce Cordell. Simple. Except the answer happens to be the only one in the FAQ dealing with stacking of temporary hit points - very much a "universal" concept. Even if you made the answer shorter and less informative you should still expect it to be consistent with the core rules and other FAQ answers about temporary hit points.

Another one:

Suppose I have an archmage or hierophant who chooses the
spell-like ability power. What is my caster level for this
ability? Do feats like Spell Focus and Spell Penetration still
apply?
The caster level for the spell-like ability is the same as for
any other spell the character casts. A 15th-level wizard/5-level
archmage, for example, casts spells as a 20th-level caster.
A feat such as Spell Penetration, which affects any spell the
user casts, also affects the spell-like ability. The Spell Focus
feat also affects the spell-like ability, provided the spell-like
ability is from the correct school. For example, if you have
Spell Focus (Evocation) the feat applies to your fireball spelllike
ability. Note that you can make a spell that has been
modified with a metamagic feat by devoting the appropriate
spell slot to the spell-like ability. (See page 42 of the
FORGOTTEN REALMS Campaign Setting book.)

Question about Forgotten Realms specific prestige classes? Hand it to the Forgotten Realms guy. Simple. Except that the answer to the seemingly specific question actually involves "universal" rules regarding spell-like abilities.

Another one:

Does the Improved Grapple feat allow you the
opportunity for additional damage on an attack? In other
words, if I first strike with an unarmed attack for 1d8
points of damage and then get a grapple check as a free
action, can I then deal another 1d8 points of damage if I
win the grapple check? Can I start a pin? What about
multiple attacks? For example, if I make three melee
attacks, could I potentially strike with the first blow for
1d8, win a grapple for 1d8 damage, strike with the next
blow for 1d8, win another grapple for 1d8, and then
strike with the last blow for 1d8 and win the grapple for a
pin? If I won the last grapple check could I instead choose
to end the grapple?
The Improved Grapple feat does not allow you to cause
damage when you initially establish a grapple using the feat.
The benefit of the feat is that you don’t take an attack of
opportunity for initiating a grapple, and you can choose to
use the feat any time you hit for damage with an unarmed
strike. The Improved Grapple feat is not meant to allow you
to deal damage twice with one attack.
When using the Improved Grapple feat, you automatically
grab an opponent after hitting for damage, and then you
attempt to establish a hold with a grapple check. You do not
deal damage with this grapple check, but once you have
established a hold, any further grapple checks you make can
deal damage.
Pinning works the same way as damage. You must first
have a hold on your opponent before you can make a grapple
check to pin.
When you have multiple attacks and you establish a hold,
you can either continue grappling or continue striking. If you
choose the latter, any additional hold you might establish
through the Improved Grapple feat has no effect. If you
choose the former, you can progress through the normal
grappling sequence (hold to damage or hold to pin). Note that
once you pin your foe, there’s no point in making any further
grapple checks unless you want to deal damage through
grappling.
The example character could strike once, dealing 1d8
points of damage, and then establish a hold with the same
attack. The character’s next attack could be a normal strike,
or it could be a grapple check. If the latter, a success could
damage the opponent or establish a pin. The third and final
attack could be a normal strike, it could establish a pin (if a
pin had not been established earlier), or it could be another
grapple check that deals damage. If you win a grapple check,
you can end the grapple.

Question about an OA specific feat (3.0)? Ask the OA guy. Simple. Except the answer very much involves the core grapple rules. If "the OA guy" differs with the Sage regarding how they're supposed to work contradictions are likely to occur.

I'm sure I could find more examples, but hopefully you get the point. Having one guy in charge has no real drawback (if he asks the right people for advice), and the advantage of consistencey.

 

[Ranger REG]

Well, even if the FAQ questions were debated and decided upon by a Council of 12,

Only if TSR is still in business and keeps a full staff of designers on payroll. WotC only keeps a handful of designers and mostly contracts freelancers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The point was that they could use any number of people on the panel that answers FAQs and still write it in a fashion that becomes the single "Voice of WotC."

 

[Ranger REG]

The point was that they could use any number of people on the panel that answers FAQs and still write it in a fashion that becomes the single "Voice of WotC."

Whoa. You make it sounds like it's the Borg Collective.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"We are the Sage of WotC.
You shall be illuminated."

 

[Goblyn]

I agree with Legildur about Hypersmurf.