3.5 FAQ and you

[SorO_Lost]

"Pull of" Is supposed to be "pull off of".

I have a semiunique talent to typo entire words and some times not enough time to fully proof read.

[RedWarlock]

My view is somewhere in that neutral-opinioned gulf between #1 and #2, though I voted #2.

The FAQ is RAW. For rules discussions, end of story. But for actual play, that's up to us at my table to decide whether we want to obey strict RAW or not. Most of the time yes, but occasionally no. That's what houserules are for, but we hold no illusions, we know they're off the book.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

I'm the 1 (or 1st) vote for the: "I dislike ..."


I don't want to influence anyone else's opinion, but 

The FAQ is kinda necessary on some level, for the
few players of the game, that go rules lawyer-ISH
without really throwing in with the rules at all.
Some people will argue the rules, and argue and argue,
and yet have no real intention of coming over here
to C.O.-ville and learning how the stuff really works.
The FAQ gives them an opportunity to quit their yap,
and get back to their homegame.

Meanwhile, C.O. can do what it has "usually" done,
evaluate whether the FAQ made the right ruling,
or what kind of spillover effects happen.  The FAQ
is more of a public relations thing, than the nitty-gritty
of the rules.


{ ... insert where's that pretty me looking in the mirror smiley face ... }
 

[Bauglir]

The major reason why I didn't vote #2 is that, by its nature as a clarification source, the FAQ is dealing with areas of the rules where it's necessarily a secondary source to whatever it's talking about. While, technically, the FAQ's general assertion that it is for clarification and not a source for new rules is trumped by any specific case of introducing a new rule, any rules claim the FAQ makes has to be compared to the actual published rules associated with it. I may be mistaken, but its track record isn't perfect on the count of consistency there, and tends to be whatever Skip thought sounded reasonable at the time. This makes the FAQ as a whole a much less solid category of RAW than most other sources, even if it's technically still RAW wherever it isn't contradicted.

[Havik_Stormcrow]

Will you all throw tomatoes if I mention the Pirate's code?

Aaaarrrrrrrrrrrr

[Amechra]

Is... is that an aDMg post that has actual... sentence structure?

I do believe that that's one of the signs of the End Times. If you don't see me in a few days, tell my wife I said hello.

On a more "serious" note, I don't care about the FAQ; only time it's ever been of importance to me is helping me find Great Throw.

[FlaminCows]

Is... is that an aDMg post that has actual... sentence structure?

If you think that was scary, you should see his post in the 5e Thread.

(click to show/hide)

I don't have much hope left for Next if the playtest is to end with it in such a state 

Almost all of the playtesters were deluding themselves, that their opinion mattered.

Buried under that bunch, are a few really insightful people who've made a difference.  A few guys from old wotc C.O. got in on 4e playtesting (as much good as that did) and some of those guys lasted through 4e C.O.  Hopefully a bunch more will "out" themselves.

It's standard practice to send a Disguised Car out on the streets for real world testing.  Then on a few rare occasions, some snoop
will spot one and take a juicy rumor pic.  Like this 2011 shot of a 2013 rumor --> http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2013-dodge-small-car-spied-inside-and-out-news

This analogy to 5e oughta be obvious.  They've got to be hiding the real thing.  At least most of it.

Uh...ADMG is that you? This post seems a little different than your others.

[Amechra]

Holy. Crap.

Excuse me while I wet myself. 

[EjoThims]

#2 because when it isn't trying to overstep its bounds, it's a great tool for clarification.

Unfortunately, by the very rules themselves, it does not actually have the ability to ever actually change the RaW.

It can only clarify which among a group of valid interpretations of the RaW were meant to be used or offer suggestions on how to houserule a situation to bring it more in line with the RaI.

Every single entry attempting anything else is to be ignored completely.

[SorO_Lost]

Unfortunately, by the very rules themselves, it does not actually have the ability to ever actually change the RaW.

Citation needed.

[EjoThims]

Unfortunately, by the very rules themselves, it does not actually have the ability to ever actually change the RaW.

Citation needed.

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 PC races, and the 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.

Even if you accept the FAQ as a rules source, if it in any way contradicts the primary source (such as the book the rule in question was printed in), the primary source takes precedent.

The sole exception to this is specific errata on the primary source in question, which the FAQ is not.

The FAQ, thusly, can never change rules, only clarify them.

Changing rules can only be done by errata.


Technically, this also invalidates just about all of the Rules Compendium, as it is not the primary source for most of its content, though one could make an argument from topic precedence.

[SorO_Lost]

Uh-huh. No never mind that the FAQ is the primary source on rules interpretation and clarification or how it, very specifically, defines how rules to interact with each other. Oh and the Rule's Compendium is primary source on the rules update.

The Errata refutes this saying primary source is all that matters. As you claim that means you should ignore the FAQ and the Rules Compendium because for instance the PHB holds ultimate and absolute final authority on all matters barring the Errata.  OF course, in the PHB under Character Creation is a list of your Races on page 6, then under the Races Chapter on page 7 is says very plainly to find your Racial Ability Modifier on Table 1-1. When the Monster Manual added the Kobold as a PC Race it disagreed with those rule entries, IE a kobold cannot find his Racial Mods on Table 1-1 nor is he listed in Character Creation. And speaking of, didn't the Tome of Battle added some very nice Base Classes didn't it? Sorry, again the Character Creation section in the PHB says the Classes are defined in Chapter 3 of the PHB, which does not include the Tome of Battle's Chapter 1 list of Classes. Likewise, page 21 of the PHB agrees as it says there are 11 Classes, not 12 or more. The Warblade doesn't exist in the official rule set. These rule examples, and the dozens like them in the PHB, DMG, and MMI, hold absolute unrivaled true authority. Nothing but the Errata can contradict them and as such vast amounts of D&D's Expansions, Supplements, Adventures, and Updates are a collection of incorrect and are not officially recognized thus have no right to be discussed in a rules debate. In effect, discussions of the Duskblade or Factotum and such should be moved to the Houserule's section.

Interesting argument EjoTannis. But for some reason I just can't help but think you're wrong, or at least no one will ever give a damn to support your point without creating a double standard. Which of course is deviation from the rules and can readily be argued against. Either way, it's your can of worms to deal with.

[EjoThims]

Just on the off chance you aren't trolling, I'll try to explain the difference between contradiction and clarification (at least as I have used them in this context).

Both can be changes to implicit function, but there is a world of difference between how they interact with what is already established.

Contradictions are statements which would make previous items untrue. In other words, directly disagreeing with what is already written. Contradictions are attempts to change explicit function.

Clarifications are additions (or even changes) which do not cause that which is already stated to become untrue. Clarifications can never change the explicit function.

For example:

If the "Shapes Handbook" states "All rectangles have four sides" and "All rectangles have four right angles"

Then the "Complete Squares" book could state "All rectangles with all four sides being equal are squares" and it would be mere clarification in establishing 'squares' as an entity in the rules and a subset of the rectangle entity.

But if it stated "Rectangles have between 3 and 5 sides" it would be a blatant contradiction.



Now, most of the FAQ contradictions aren't so simple (especially when there is also a specific versus general rule). And, honestly, I'm not going to waste my time digging up a bunch of the examples in it.

But one I can point out quickly (and no one should be surprised this is the example I remember):

Does the deepwarden’s Stone Warden ability (RS 105) still have a maximum Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class, and does that maximum still apply to his Constitution?
The maximum Dexterity bonus should be treated as the maximum ability bonus given by the armor, so if you were playing a deepwarden wearing full plate, you would only add 1 to your Armor Class from your Constitution.

The use of the word 'should' should key any reader off to this being a suggestion for a houserule (and it does fit the RaI). But this is a direct contradiction to what is actually printed in the ability and all other relevant text and would thusly require being houseruled.



Now, the FAQ is much better at being clear when it's pointing out a suggested houserule than the Sage articles, but it still slips up like this.

[SorO_Lost]

So you're problem with the FAQ is a language debate. "Should" can mean the entry is a suggestion - Obama is terrible, I should have voted for the other guy - and so you refute it under the misguided concept that the entry is also incorrect.

But "Should" can also mean to indicate correctness -  the 2x4 is two it's short is should be 12" in total - and it is criticizing the improper wording. In the same regard:

Stone Warden (Ex): Beginning at 2nd level, a deepwarden knows how to use his strengths to compensate for his weaknesses. He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character’s Constitution bonus is higher. The deepwarden loses this bonus to his Armor Class whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC. In such a situation, the deepwarden would still be considered flat-footed.

Let's cut the green text, it's reminder text and it does not contradict the FAQ's ruling because it does not say you are to ignore the MDB of armor.

Instead, focus on this: "He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character’s Constitution bonus is higher."
As you so delightfully pointed out. There is a word and a problem with it's usage. "Instead of" is a replacement. Let us put this in another way. Traffic lights use red for stop, yellow for a warning, and green for go. If I stated you are you use red for go instead of green. If I am at a red light and there is a sign saying no turning on red. Has this sign be altered? Should it be ignored? And more importantly who says it should be ignored? We have replaced the color we are using to denote stop & go but there is no notation that we have not removed the law that says you are not to turn right on red.

When the Deep Warden said you replace your Dex Mod with your Con Mod, it did not change any other inherent limitations of how you would add, limit, or deny your Dex-To-AC. The following text is reminder text. One of the repercussions of being a replacement is that it's still subject to effects that would deny you of your bonus. Just like another one of the repercussions would be the maximum limitation imposed by your armor or how your Touch AC is to be calculated. These effects would be filled in per handling the replacement correctly.

"But that don't make sense. Dwarves are tough, hardy people. The entry claimed you use your strength to cover your weaknesses. A Deepwarden is a tank, a stalwart defender, a linebacker!" Comes to mind right? That is a fallacy of appeal, and incorrect at that. Deepwarders are an explorers, scouts, the first line of defense not the main force. Faerun describes Dwarven cities to be huge, containing castles and fortresses. Many floored buildings and massive caverns can be found throughout the Underdark. A Deepwarden would not seek to wear unyielding metal but light mobile armor that can be worn when scaling walls of these empty massive caverns or deep ravines. And speaking of agility, look at the rest of the Deepward's abilities. His obtains Swift Tracker to maintain his speed while tracking down possible threats and Uncanny Dodge. Illogically his Constitution Modifier is noted in parenthesis (there again as a reminder) to apply, how do you truly explain this in game? You don't, not any more than an agility limit shouldn't apply to an endurance related trait. It is a continued repercussion of the ideals that a Deepwarden seeks to be nimple and the unique sell point of a Con-instead-of-Dex feature. This fallacy of appeal has nothing to grab onto, the Deepwarden was never intended to be wearing full-mountain plate armor. In fact, the build example wears nothing more than a +1 chain shirt, which is light armor.

So what you have is no real argument that the FAQ is incorrect. The FAQ is adding clarification to already presented rules, not contradicting them. The FAQ is following the example of intent laid out within the class. The FAQ correctly interprets proper rule alterations and inheritance of replacement. Dubbing incorrect is of course a mistake on your part, you have incorrectly read the rules and incorrectly interpreted them. Honestly, it's a rather small mistake and commonly happens. So much in fact that WotC is aware that this problem happens often and sought to provided a resource to clarify possible mistakes. The guy with the best credentials willing to manage this resource was put in charge. Would you in turn spit on his face and deny WotC's right to create and mange their D&D product as they see fit. Then somehow, you consider your self to be the unpaid official and final editor of WotC's content. Not as a DM where in your game you create an entire world seeking to provide a fun adventure for your players and you. But as the editor in chief that decrees which books should or should not carry WotC's seal of approval, and all others must adhere to your demands. All because you cannot admit you were wrong? Would you really, knowingly, seek to be that bad of a person?

Think about this post. I mean it really. Don't post today, don't post tomorrow. Post after you've really given things thought and done some soul searching. Is the FAQ really incorrect, or have you heard bad things and assumed so? Was it really wrong on Deepwarden, or as SorO pointed out instead of does not alienate dependencies? Is the so called flaws see really and truly stand out, or do they blend into the backdrop of imperfections and fuck ups that D&D has included in every single supplement? Would you truly disregard the RC because intended to update the rules and providing clarification a bad thing? And if not, why are you really strictly drawing the line at the FAQ? You cannot blame customer service because that is a double edged lie into it's self, and one that I'd happily explain again if you need. I rather like the calm level headed approach we've got going on.

[wotmaniac]

Technically, this also invalidates just about all of the Rules Compendium, as it is not the primary source for most of its content, though one could make an argument from topic precedence.

As much as I hate doing this ('cause I'm in general agreement with the main thrust of your position), I do feel compelled to point this out:

Introduction
The book you hold in your hands is the definitive guide for how to play the 3.5 revision of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Roleplaying Game. Years in the making, it gathers resources from a wide variety of supplements, rules errata, and rules clarifications to provide an authoritative guide for playing the D&D game. It updates and elucidates the rules, as well as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and easier to play. When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence.

It is what it is.
I think that the differences between Core and Rules Compendium are sometimes a bit circumspect (due to some of the methodology involved with compiling the RC).  Because of that, I'm very uncomfortable with that line from RC; but as far as "RAW" goes, .....

Now, the FAQ is much better at being clear when it's pointing out a suggested houserule than the Sage articles, but it still slips up like this.

FAQ is drawn from Sage articles and CustServ.
Just sayin'.

[linklord231]

The Deepwarden example isn't the best one, because it could be construed as a clarification or even a suggested houserule, rather than a rules change.  But how do you reconcile, say, the Arcane Thesis FAQ entry with the PHB2 errata?

Page 74– Arcane Thesis [Substitution]
Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).

If a character with Arcane Thesis (PH2 74) applies multiple metamagic feats to the chosen spell, is the spell’s slot reduced by one level, or by one level per metamagic feat applied?
Arcane Thesis reduces the total spell level of a metamagic affected spell by one, regardless of the number of metamagic feats applied. An empowered (+2 levels), still (+1 level), silent (+1 level) fireball would be 6th level.

The version of the FAQ this was taken from was published 6/30/08, while the PHB2 errata was published 10/16/07 - since the FAQ ruling came after the PHB2 errata, it represents a direct contradiction of rules already in place and cannot be seen as a "clarification". 

Edit:  I think WotC has a problem with saying "should" when they mean "shall".  It happens rather often.  "Should" can be taken as giving advice, but could also be a command.  Both are grammatically correct.  "Shall" can only be a command. 

[wotmaniac]

Page 74– Arcane Thesis [Substitution]
Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).

If a character with Arcane Thesis (PH2 74) applies multiple metamagic feats to the chosen spell, is the spell’s slot reduced by one level, or by one level per metamagic feat applied?
Arcane Thesis reduces the total spell level of a metamagic affected spell by one, regardless of the number of metamagic feats applied. An empowered (+2 levels), still (+1 level), silent (+1 level) fireball would be 6th level.

The version of the FAQ this was taken from was published 6/30/08, while the PHB2 errata was published 10/16/07 - since the FAQ ruling came after the PHB2 errata, it represents a direct contradiction of rules already in place and cannot be seen as a "clarification". 

Edit:  I think WotC has a problem with saying "should" when they mean "shall".  It happens rather often.  "Should" can be taken as giving advice, but could also be a command.  Both are grammatically correct.  "Shall" can only be a command. 

This would be yet another clear example where the FAQ is object wrong.  Full stop.

[SorO_Lost]

The Deepwarden example isn't the best one, because it could be construed as a clarification or even a suggested houserule, rather than a rules change.  But how do you reconcile, say, the Arcane Thesis FAQ entry with the PHB2 errata?

Ahh the Arcane Thesis entry.

Believe it or not I love this one. It's the easiest one to prove the FAQ is correct on. Let's build all the points here in a row.

Section 1

Page 74– Arcane Thesis [Substitution] Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).
Page 74 – Arcane Thesis [Omission] Add the following text to the end of the “Benefit” section: “A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat.”

And right off the bat we have a problem. Do you see it?

Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell”

Now look at all the other Errata entries. Someone made a costly grammatical mistake that cost them "RAW" and lost the argument. But we both know I tend to disregard that and if it's not enough for me, then I continue on. But remember that misplaced end quotation mark the next time you want to have a "RAW" discussion.

Section 2
Post-Errata Arcane Thesis now reads like this

Choose one arcane spell that you can cast to be your thesis spell. When casting that spell, you do so at +2 caster level. When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal. Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3). A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat.

Except now we have another problem. Do you see it?
"When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal."
When you apply multiple Feats the Spell it's self uses a spell slot one level lower than normal. Not the cost of applying the Metamagic Feat is reduced by one, not each time you apply a Metamagic Feat the Spell uses a lower slot, but multiple on singular equals one. Arcane Thesis reduces the Spell's Cost by one, not the Metamagic.

And even when attempting to purposely interpret this in another way you reach a dead end. For instance, let's pose that you apply Metamagic Feats one at a time and Arcane Thesis is intended to trigger on each application right? For instance; Fireball + Empower could triggers Arcane Thesis's text and reduces the level by one. Now if you applied Maximize it should trigger again or ((Fireball+Empower & Thesis)+Maximize & Thesis) right? Well no. Run this logic through a parallel arguments. If a Cleric with Augment Healing were to recast one of his Spells (such as using spelltheift or greater anyspell(mage's lubrication)) would the Spell heal +4 HP per Spell level? If you attack multiple times per round, dose Weapon Focus continue to provide a +1 Bonus to your previous Attack Rolls? No. D&D does not work like that. Arcane Thesis is applied once to the enhanced spell, not multiple times.

The Example text disagrees with the rules text. The Example is incorrect.

Section 3
So why are we still humoring things? Because the example text says other wise. No, the updated example text says otherwise. There is an absolute emphasis on the updated part, this is how the Example text is supposed to be. So RAW discussions aside, intent by the Errata Author is this. And you'd almost have me right here. In fact, I think everyone sees the Errata and comes to the same conclusion, is it how it's supposed to work, even if the rules disagree with it. Kind of like Dragon Disciple or Ur-Priest. And you know what, I cannot find any faults with the idea, I do however have beefs with it's usage.

Example text's function is to clarify the rules, but this is also the FAQ's dedicated role. The FAQ is RAI, the official RAI, plus whatever else it does. But it's undebatable that it is is meant for rule clarification and interpretation and provided the newest update. So no, from a D&D as a whole stand point, Arcane Thesis is not intended to work that way.

Bonus Section!
Ahh the best part. RAW, Intent, the actual wording, everything is in line with the FAQ. Is there any hang ups in sight? Sure. As Ejo has explained things Primary Source is the absolute final authority and updates don't matter. Boy that's a tough one isn't it? I guess I'll go with my welcome to the stone age of Core Only and retire because Arcane Thesis would be one such house rule

Well, to that I do have one last mention. Since at least the MM3's Errata (dated 06-29-06) the Errata wordings has been altered.

When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source (actual rules text) is correct and any secondary reference (such as a table or character's statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically.

The PHBII's Errata uses this updated introduction and this type of entry does not prohibit rule updating. Primary source is intended to per product level. As in CS's rules can trump CS's examples but if CM wants to trump the CC, then the CM must approach matters that when regarding D&D as the product, CM's entry would be seen as trumping source. Like the FAQ does with it's entries.

Examples would be Complete Arcane's Weaponlike Spells entry that altered several things that FAQ had to cover before it came out. How several books updated Quicken Spell after explaining what Swift & Immediate Actions. How the ToB contains an updated section of Incorporeal Rules meant to replace the ones that came before. Even the FAQ's ruling that touching an illusion discharges a Touch Spell. These things may (or may not) have contradicted the PHB's claim on primary source but all four of those example, yes the FAQ included, made an appearance on the Rule's Compendium and we know what that was intended to be. Updates, no matter what they come from, trump Errata.

Oh crap, they never went back and changed the PHB's Errata's Introduction did they?
Guess stone age it is. 

Edit - I got my CS/CMs mixed up. Couple spell checks too.

[RobbyPants]

I voted 5 (the hate vote). While I think there are plenty of good rulings in the FAQ, I don't know which are good and which are bad until I research the answer to vet it. If I have to do a bunch of research to figure out if the answer is any good, then it's not a good resource for providing answers; I could have just researched my own question.

I prefer asking rules questions here. There are enough knowledgeable people that someone is bound to remember some esoteric rule that confirms or contradicts my initial assumptions.

[ImperatorK]

I voted for the 3rd option. For me FAQ isn't RAW. It might be helpful but it never overrules my own opinion (if I have one). I value FAQs on the same level as opinions of some of the more knowledgeable and helpful people on this boards, but they're still just opinions.