Or, more generally, if the FAQ explicitly disagrees with something that the books say, which is correct?
In my experience the FAQ really doesn't disagree with the rules.
I just gave an example of a time where it does.
If we take it as read that RotD disallows half-dragon dragons, how do you justify that with the FAQ entry saying that you can have half-dragon dragons?
Alternatively, for an example of the FAQ contradicting itself, on pg 30 it says that losing a prerequisite for a prestige class causes you to lose all class feature for that PrC, but on page 6 it says that a Warforged Juggernaut/Reforged keeps its class features despite losing one of the prereqs for Warforged Juggernaut.
Note:
Previously on this threadLink you do realize much of what you mentioned was already covered right? Well probably not because you also missed the one error != ignoreall and the whole seek to understand part. So I guess, since this thread has been revamped into SorO's educational moments, let me also turn your post into something better than argumentative ignorance.
The FAQ, as I've point out before is not a causation of RAW but the specific ruling of interactions. The prime difference here is that when you think the FAQ has no power to alter the rules then 3 & 3 equaling 6 is the only thing you think it can say, however the FAQ has the power to say that 3 & 3 could be 6 (3+3), 9 (3x3), 1 (3÷3), 0 (3-3) even 28 (3^3+1) if so wanted and you need to approach things with the question of why.
So let's start somewhere else, Dragon Disciple & Ur-Priest. Are they an oxymoron, do they invalidate them selves, and how should you handle them on the tabletop? First, let us go to the perceived problem and take an actual look at it instead of assuming that we "know" it off the top of our head.
Meeting Class Requirements: It's possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position where the character no longer qualifies to be a member of the class. An alignment change, levels lost because of character death, or the loss of a magic item that granted an important ability are examples of events that can make a character ineligible to advance farther in a prestige class.
If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that the class provided.
A couple things stand out, the passage implies that the actual taking of a level of a PrC wouldn't invalidate you, only later actions do, and invalidation example aims for willingly or unwillingly sold off your Alignment/MacGruffin for something else.
Now examples really are not good enough to count as rules text but remember examples can be used as proof of intent. So there is nothing in the first paragraph that suggests a PrC's granted Class Features can actually make you exempt and it's suggestive otherwise, it's only in the broad strokes of the second paragraph that we include them. So not to fall into the fallacy of "Begging the Question" here or assume we should just mark things as a rule oddity and move on, let's do a little research into the subject.
FAQ 30-31 cover an Alignment change invalidation and adds how to handle Skill Points and a couple other entries reference Soulmeld/Item loss invalidates which are already strongly quantified. There is a bit that basically boils down to items cannot meet Spellcasting Requirements but that stems from CAr's more detailed entries and Ask Wizard's ambiguity clarification (
link). And then you hit page 6.
While much of the FAQ's entry on page 6 follows the standard expectation, Reforged has no requirements, immunity trumps +/- math, etc. it says this.
If the character already had one or more levels in warforged juggernaut before reaching 3rd level as a reforged, he would retain all warforged juggernaut class features (even the armor spikes gained at 1st level, since these aren’t the result of a warforged feat) but could not gain any additional levels in the prestige class.
This line supports an interpretation that there are things that should, or should not, be used to determine what invalidates you. More specifically, PrC levels should not invalidate PrC requirements.
Again, it's not that the FAQ is running contrary to the rules. Rather we've created an assumption of meaning that was arbitrarily given to CW, followed where it takes us, and arrived at a disagreement between two rule sources just by trying to use Complete Warrior and either Complete Divine or the DMG together (wouldn't you love an errata>all discussion now?). We're attempting to resolve this issue by clarifying our understanding. The FAQ in turn doesn't disagree with the full text, only the interpretation brought up by a partial second-paragraph-only quote. The real role the FAQ is playing here is giving precedence to support an interpretation that is already implied and used in the rule structure. Even through you may not think it is implied as strongly as another or not.
And that interpretation's outcome also happens to agree with the intended usage of more than one PrC should be allowed to work without invalidating it's self as well as the FAQ which also hardline much like CW but only in certain instances. What
that interpretation is completing against is what amounts to be "the more popular one" (aka
your interpretation) that causes collateral exceptions elsewhere in the rule structure. And this also directly calls back to what I've been saying for the last month about things, and Link you played the perfect part of ignorant idiot posting what can subjective seen as a "very stupid" rebuttal with a very weak stance that requires additional houserules to patch your rulings. Because you are so strongly willing to argue
a point you blindly rushed into the intersection even as the warning lights and dinging sounds try to help reverse natural selection and you missed the entire conversation about
the point.
Poll