Yargh! Share Spells redux

[Felix]

"RotG articles are official. The official FAQ is official. RotG are full of mistakes and silly rules. Therefore, the official FAQ can't be taken seriously".

Slight correction.

Premise: RotG articles are official.
Premise: The official FAQ is official.
Premise: RotG articles are full of mistakes and silly rules.
Premise: The official FAQ is full of mistakes and silly rules.

Conclusion: I will not depend on official documents released by WotC to not be full of mistakes and silly rules.

Which leads to (for me): I will not depend on official documents released by WotC.

Relevance? The clarifications you can glean from official documents (RotG, FAQ, etc.) are not worth the extra time one must take to ferret out all of the mistakes and silly rulings.

Any clearer for you Iku Rex?

 

[Dinkeldog]

Is the PHB official? How about the DMG? MM?

 

[Belbarid]

Is the PHB official? How about the DMG? MM?

There's only *one* source of official rulings. The DM. *Everything* else is just a set of semi-argeed-upon guidelines, to be used or not as fits the campaign.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Is the PHB official? How about the DMG? MM?

Yep - they're also CORE, which means they get to override a bunch of other stuff.

 

[Dinkeldog]

It could also be argued that the latest "official" source would override all earlier "official" sources.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It could also be argued that the latest "official" source would override all earlier "official" sources.

No, it couldn't, because of:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

 

[DanMcS]

Whaaaaaaaaaat? Dragon mag? That filthy PoS is "official?" I have always written off that crap as crack-induced splat. Now I'm actually supposed to admit that <um, stuff> into my game?

Why do you care what is official or not? Official is a meaningless term. Use whatever you feel like, I guarantee the WotC compliance ninjas will not raid your game.

 

[Pinotage]

No, it couldn't, because of:

How, then, do you differenciate on topic precedence between the Player's Handbook and say one of the Complete books? Aren't they covering the same topics and as such should be considered the primary source?

Pinotage

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

How, then, do you differenciate on topic precedence between the Player's Handbook and say one of the Complete books? Aren't they covering the same topics and as such should be considered the primary source?

Such as ... ?

EDIT:

Not trying to be snarky - I just want to know what kind of example we're talking about here.

 

[IanB]

It seems clear to me that RotG articles are not "official" in the same capacity as the FAQ.

And later rulings override previous ones, certainly. That is how it works in pretty much every WotC game. The FAQ takes precedence over the core rules, as far as 'official rulings' are concerned. When the FAQ itself has errors or is contradictory, we should go back to the prior source (in the infamous acid/sonic hardness case for example) until the FAQ is corrected.