Yargh! Share Spells redux

[moritheil]

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.

Why? Many posters here feel the FAQ does not have precedence over the core rules. Can you tell me why you feel differently?

 

[IanB]

Put simply, I feel that WotC has settled on the FAQ as their official channel for rules clarifications to the end user. When the publisher of a set of rules publishes a FAQ, and calls it the official document to check for rules questions, then rulings in said FAQ should be treated as the latest official rulings. This is WotC's MO for all their games.

 

[Pinotage]

Such as ... ?

EDIT:

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

Rules on weapon-like spells? Swift and immediate actions? I wasn't really thinking about a specific example, merely querying exactly what defines a primary source given that so many sources cover the same things these days, from Races in the races books to classes in the complete books. There are no rules for distinguishing between sources, so it looks like everything is considered a primary resource, particularly the newer stuff which hence supercededs the PHB.

Pinotage

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Rules on weapon-like spells?

These are merely a clarification on what's left unsaid in the PHB. Accordingly, they don't overwrite anything present in the PHB.

Swift and immediate actions?

Which don't exist in the PHB, and therefore cannot be considered the primary source for them.

I wasn't really thinking about a specific example

The reason I asked is because I cannot think of anything that a splat book has *altered* the PHB. There are things it has expanded upon (such as new example skill DCs and uses), but in any case they have never contradicted that which is within the PHB.

And, in any case, the splatbooks are optional, and are therefore by definition non-CORE. By accepting them into a campaign, the DM has tacitly agreed that, "Although the PHB / Other Primary CORE Source says X, we will be using Variant Rule Y."

 

[Pinotage]

The reason I asked is because I cannot think of anything that a splat book has *altered* the PHB. There are things it has expanded upon (such as new example skill DCs and uses), but in any case they have never contradicted that which is within the PHB.

And, in any case, the splatbooks are optional, and are therefore by definition non-CORE. By accepting them into a campaign, the DM has tacitly agreed that, "Although the PHB / Other Primary CORE Source says X, we will be using Variant Rule Y."

OK, thanks. But if they did contradict the PHB on something, and there was no topic precedence, would you still call the PHB the primary source?

Pinotage

 

[glass]

OK, thanks. But if they did contradict the PHB on something, and there was no topic precedence, would you still call the PHB the primary source?

Pinotage

If there was something in a supplement that contradicted the PHB, then it would be an optional variant rule, and it would be up to the DM/group whether it was in use or not.

For example, the Armour as DR rules in UA obviously contradict the armour rules in the PHB. If you are using armour as DR then UA is the primary source, otherwise the PHB is.


glass.

 

[Rystil Arden]

If there was something in a supplement that contradicted the PHB, then it would be an optional variant rule, and it would be up to the DM/group whether it was in use or not.

For example, the Armour as DR rules in UA obviously contradict the armour rules in the PHB. If you are using armour as DR then UA is the primary source, otherwise the PHB is.


glass.

Yep. The only exceptions were the few times they made the weird decision to publish errata in supplements, like the Polymorph errata in Tome and Blood, but when they did that, they always specifically called it out as such.

 

[glass]

Yep. The only exceptions were the few times they made the weird decision to publish errata in supplements, like the Polymorph errata in Tome and Blood, but when they did that, they always specifically called it out as such.

I never bothered to check, but I always assumed that it was in the main errata as well as being in Tome & Blood. Right?


glass.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I never bothered to check, but I always assumed that it was in the main errata as well as being in Tome & Blood. Right?


glass.

I didn't check either. Hopefully.

 

[Verequus]

I never bothered to check, but I always assumed that it was in the main errata as well as being in Tome & Blood. Right?

IIRC, then the errata for 3.0 had another version of Polymorph - I think, we had at least 4 versions of this spell, which have been at one point or the other the official one. I didn't bother to check, if they got it good enough to use it, because I use Elements of Magic Revised, which covers it with sensible rules, which can't be simply duplicated for the core version.