Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Wisdom to AC ... twice?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4060565" data-attributes="member: 51942"><p>It's interesting, I use the converse argument to consider the FAQ as indicative unless flawed: clearly, many rules in primary sources are (or were) erroneous. Some rules lead to inconsistencies, and others are ill-considered, and probably unplayable by the letter. I think of the rules as a whole as a explanation about how to best play D&D - occasionally wrong, and sometimes corrected (erratad), and sometimes forced into inconvenient compromises due to badly thought out rules. I don't trust the rules to be error-free, nor for them to describe best-practice very well.</p><p></p><p>The FAQ's not much different in this regard. Generally, it aims to answer questions in which there is no very definitely answer - issues which require combining multiple rules, reading between the rules, inferring intent, and using common sense. Such rulings you can make based on the rule mechanics too, but the descriptive text is often lacking, and the rule mechanics not always well defined enough to do so.</p><p></p><p>So unless a rule question is clear cut - i.e. it's simply a matter of knowing where to look it up, essentially - why would the FAQ be any worse than other rules? The advantage of the FAQ above my own judgement is that it allows me to refer to it, and that it's published and open to my players. Unless there's a reason otherwise, I tend to follow the FAQ, and consider it's statement no different than rule-book interpretive statements (i.e. it's not a primary source, but it is a valid source).</p><p></p><p><em>Edited to add:</em> Not that it's a bad idea to critically examine the rulings - they're definitely no less broken than much other WotC published material - i.e. most of it's fine, but some of it is questionable <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="eamon, post: 4060565, member: 51942"] It's interesting, I use the converse argument to consider the FAQ as indicative unless flawed: clearly, many rules in primary sources are (or were) erroneous. Some rules lead to inconsistencies, and others are ill-considered, and probably unplayable by the letter. I think of the rules as a whole as a explanation about how to best play D&D - occasionally wrong, and sometimes corrected (erratad), and sometimes forced into inconvenient compromises due to badly thought out rules. I don't trust the rules to be error-free, nor for them to describe best-practice very well. The FAQ's not much different in this regard. Generally, it aims to answer questions in which there is no very definitely answer - issues which require combining multiple rules, reading between the rules, inferring intent, and using common sense. Such rulings you can make based on the rule mechanics too, but the descriptive text is often lacking, and the rule mechanics not always well defined enough to do so. So unless a rule question is clear cut - i.e. it's simply a matter of knowing where to look it up, essentially - why would the FAQ be any worse than other rules? The advantage of the FAQ above my own judgement is that it allows me to refer to it, and that it's published and open to my players. Unless there's a reason otherwise, I tend to follow the FAQ, and consider it's statement no different than rule-book interpretive statements (i.e. it's not a primary source, but it is a valid source). [i]Edited to add:[/i] Not that it's a bad idea to critically examine the rulings - they're definitely no less broken than much other WotC published material - i.e. most of it's fine, but some of it is questionable ;) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Wisdom to AC ... twice?
Top