Particular qualms with the FAQ

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

The context started with Apocalypse from the Sky spell [BoVD85]:

(click to show/hide)

Especially since I, at least, have read every last argument made here at least 7 times now.

Agree that there is no one true right answer.
Agree that the different people here are going to use this resource differently than you, and have reasons for it.
Agree that this is, inherently, because WotC is made of multiple people, and they don't always agree with each other either.

I'd like to see if a solution becomes apparent once the most egregious offenders are found. Maybe those can be dealt with. Is this trying to please everyone? Maybe and I'm aware of what happens when you try that. Is it a biased way of trying? Oh yeah. But I think it's worth a shot.

On the AftS: is using up the artifact vs not unbalancing by RAW? I don't see a good justification RAI for corrupt spells not having Material Components in addition to corrupt components. In fact if the material component (in this one case) ended up being a focus, then it would get rid of the whole "I've destroyed the One Ring without going on a quest" loop-hole.

I'm looking for a simple list of parts of the FAQ that you have a problem with. Don't say all of it. Don't say none of it. That is not helpful. You can have qualms over balance changes, interpretation, or heck diction. I'm not interested in defense or advocation of how we all have to obey or not obey it in our games. I simply don't care about that.

One at a time please. See? I only have one up there.

Let me repeat, I'm not looking whether you like the FAQ in general. Perhaps you love it. Good for you. Perhaps you hate it. Good for you. Either way I'm looking for the one (or maybe many) entry that you would prefer weren't there. Just post the one (in full, or its page number) that you don't like. If you don't have any or dislike it all: don't post. Don't read. Move along citizen. Just to convince you not to intervene early, I'll even make a temporary poll in case an appeal Democracy helps me decide what to do here. I'll try to cobble something together to please everyone in the post below. Then you can lay into me/this thread.

Lastly, I do not want any RAI versus RAW discussion. Assume its all one or the other or a mix. I don't care and for the purposes of this little thread, neither do you. Go to the poll thread for that. Do however give me a good feel for the well-written vs the not well thought through parts. For some reason people get all huffy about the FAQ and the Rules Compendium and insist on talking about each other for reasons I don't understand and, again, don't care about. If you want to talk about the RC or other posters or how we should interpret rules, go start your own Endaire-ish thread. This one's mine!

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Reserved for when I can make sense of all the qualms at once. Yes I've read the FAQ. No I don't have any idea about how I'm going to pull this one together.

Let's be civil until we get enough discussion I can update this post. Edit: we actually might continue to be civil. I'm going to plop this partial quote down here:

the disregard is carried over to Sage Online, an article that indisputably happened, and I've seen it referenced that because the FAQ has been answered by "the Sage" then association dictates both are piles of skunk manure.

Well, "The Sage" as of at least the Sage Online article's starting point until at least 4th Edition (since he worked on the PHB) was none other than Andy Collins. He worked on both planar books (MotP/PlH), both item books (A&E/MiC), a couple completes (CAd/CD/CW), some misc ones (Draco, MMIII, FF, FR:MoF), in fact without him who knows. We may not have had Flaws (UA), Shadowcraft Mages (RoS) or Necropolitons (LM). At the very least the guy has back ground credit for making screwed up rulebooks.

[zook1shoe]

Sword and Fist FAQ, the person says can't trigger a free attack from Imp Trip when tripping with Knockdown

[linklord231]

All 3 entries regarding Arcane Thesis, pgs 38 - 39.
The entry regarding Strongheart Vest + Hellfire Warlock, pg 116 (not only are they wrong, their justification is just stupid.  By that logic, contact/ingested/inhaled poisons would not be effected by the Vest, nor would several other things)
The entry about Druid Animal Companions increasing size, pg 14.  "The advancement entries for creatures... refer to unusually powerful specimens that are simply tougher (and perhaps bigger) than normal for their kinds."  Isn't that exactly what an animal companion with bonus Hit Dice is?  Same goes for a similar question on pg 15. 

There are others, but it's late.

[Nunkuruji]

Losing prestige class abilities due to alignment shift, that are not divinely granted. The Assassin example.

[Pteryx]

Complete Arcane: Hideous Blow provoking attacks of opportunity.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Claiming that you have to pay the 2000 gp each time you enhance a cold iron weapon, so that a +5 sword that was made all in one go from masterwork costs significantly less than a +5 sword that went masterwork to +1, then later to +2, etc...

That "ruling" is especially atrocious to me.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Oo this is all interesting. Keep it coming

[Cyclone Joker]

Warforged Dragonborn. That one has always held a special place in my heart, along with pop music and people who talk in movie theaters. It's pretty explicit in saying it goes to humanoids, and all.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

people who talk in movie theaters

Oh crap. I'm so guilty of that. But I do try to keep it down.

[SorO_Lost]

people who talk in movie theaters

Oh crap. I'm so guilty of that. But I do try to keep it down.

Me too, but I'm not around too long. I just I take bets on who done it.

I love free dinners 

[Halinn]

people who talk in movie theaters

Oh crap. I'm so guilty of that. But I do try to keep it down.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pCvUwuysg8

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

This might not be fair, but I just noticed that this entry on the online ask the sage seems to have a glaringly obvious lack of correction to the question:

08/15/2007

Q: Dear Sage
Since the warlock's powers are innate, does he still have to train every level to gain his invocations (like a wizard learning new spells) or does he just get them automatically when he gains a level?
--Louis

A: Dungeons & Dragons assumes that all characters are constantly training in their abilities, and that new class features, spells, feats, and so on are automatically gained upon reaching a new level without the need for special training costs.

The Dungeon Master’s Guide provides options for DMs who wish to require formalized training for characters to improve their abilities (DMG p197). It’s perfectly reasonable to require a warlock to train in order to master a newly gained spell-like ability just like any other arcane caster. Ultimately, however, it’s up to the DM to decide how to apply this optional rule to classes not found in the Player’s Handbook.

No qualms about calling the warlock's powers... ahem, invocations, innate. Now look at:

"Can a warlock qualify for the Supernatural Transformation feat (Savage Species, page 39) and change one of his invocations into a supernatural ability?

No. The warlock's spell-like abilities are learned (from class levels), not innate (that is, part of his racial traits).

This is a full stop. I thought the online sage was the author of the FAQ. Or am I wrong?

[Jackinthegreen]

This is a full stop. I thought the online sage was the author of the FAQ. Or am I wrong?

Not always.  Sometimes the FAQ guy did online stuff, but some of the online stuff was done by other people.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

So the online stuff could be considered less important for centered-set sort of people. Got it. What about the writers of the Ask Wizards entries (plug)

[SorO_Lost]

Pretty sure the word "innate" is used to describe both the Warlock and Sorcerer spellcasting. But no, it's not defined as "Innate" rule wise as true Innate spellcasting is obtained racially and lets you ignore certain components required by Spells. Also, the question refers to them being innate ambiguously. The answer in turn is the Warlock trains them, ie not Innate. The second question refers to them not being innate which would mean it's talking at a rules level. So both entires agree with each other, the former just didn't take the time to explain D&D's usage of a word. In fact, if not for you emboldening the questioner's word usage, I wouldn't have even noticed it because the intent of the messages is does the Warlock have to train & yes.

And no, I don't think the FAQ and the Sage were the same person. For one thing, Andy Collins took over the Sage role back in November 2006 so there was an absolute bare minimum two guys publishing Sage Advice. If there is any Sage/FAQ layovers, that' be case and point that one entry wasn't done by another, different, Sage.

As far as the Online Articles, they often are published by one guy per series, the entires tell you who wrote it. However those are looked down upon because the Unarmed Attacks entry is self contradictory. Well that and Unarmed Strike is sort of ambiguous so discussions come up but not the rest because they talk about more clear cut rules. Anyway, those unarmed articles were wrote by Skip Williams. You'd remember that guy, he worked on Pathfinder and did Dragon's Sage because, and I quote, "Roger E. Moore simply couldn't find anyone else willing to regularly write the column". I'm not saying he is a terrible author but I am saying he was used to working along side a great editor. Which is the important element to remember here. The Books, FAQ, Errata, were all published material with several hands in. Consistency may go down but the many hands refined things into what you know as the rules today. The Online Articles and secondary works (such as the pathfinder project) allow one to judge the individual's writing skills, biasms, and their inability to communicate or build a balanced system. So when you start discussing those, you end up playing who is your favorite writer.