3.5 Main FAQ

[mattie_p]

So, what is the FAQ? Is it RAW? Is it Errata? Is it RAI? Here is the place to discuss the FAQ, its merits, its flaws, and so forth. We've derailed at least one thread talking about the FAQ, so please discuss it here. As always, please keep it civil.

One error that I believe the FAQ has made is found on page 3.



Do anthropomorphic felines lose their pounce abilities?
Yes; see the Special Attacks entry on page 215 of SS.
So I decided to pop open SS and see what it says.


Special Attacks: Attacks that rely on a nonhumanoid shape, such as hind-leg rakes, trampling, or a snake's constriction, are no longer available.

So is pounce shape-dependent? Pounce itself says the following:


Pounce
When a creature with this special attack makes a charge, it can follow with a full attack—including rake attacks if the creature also has the rake ability.

So the anthropomorphic should lose the rakes (if they had them at all) on the pounce by RAW, but I don't see anything in the ability that relies upon shape. Indeed, given that pounce is available via other means such as Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian ACF from CC, pounce has nothing to do with shape at all.

[eggynack]

I think that my argument for it not being RAW holds up here as well. I might as well put it here.

In the player's handbook errata, under the section labelled, "Errata Rule: Primary Sources", is the line, "When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct." Thus, in any conflict between one of the actual books, which are primary sources, and the FAQ, which is not one, the actual books win. Due to this, the FAQ has no ability to alter or effect the rules, so it is not RAW.
Still, the other questions, like what other weird things the FAQ has, seem compelling enough.

[mattie_p]

I think that my argument for it not being RAW holds up here as well. I might as well put it here.

Still, the other questions, like what other weird things the FAQ has, seem compelling enough.

I figure 4 pages of arguments in a thread about VoP is a sufficient derailment. Everyone can drag their own piece of the conversation here, I didn't feel the need to multiquote everyone in the thread.

[JaronK]

It's called the Official Rules FAQ. Thus, it's official.

It's also more specific on every question for obvious reasons, and "specific overrides general" trumps the primary source rules completely.

Even though I really don't like some of what's written in there, it's definitely RAW.

JaronK

[eggynack]

I figure 4 pages of arguments in a thread about VoP is a sufficient derailment. Everyone can drag their own piece of the conversation here, I didn't feel the need to multiquote everyone in the thread.
That makes enough sense. I just think that the issue of it being RAW or not was kinda resolved. It doesn't seem to be the kinda evidence that brooks much argument.

[eggynack]

It's called the Official Rules FAQ. Thus, it's official.

It's also more specific on every question for obvious reasons, and "specific overrides general" trumps the primary source rules completely.

Even though I really don't like some of what's written in there, it's definitely RAW.

JaronK
I don't think that specific overrides general trumps the primary source rule in that way. The FAQ lacks even the beginnings of the authority to invoke specific rulings, so it falls flat before it even begins. The FAQ is neither a rulebook, nor is it errata, so it can not change the rules. You're going to need more justification for the claim that specific overrides general trumps the primary source rules than just saying that it's true.

[mattie_p]

Additionally, the FAQ is simply a bunch of ask the Sage questions that popped up often enough that they wanted to curtail the process. And many of the ask the sage answers were definitely contradictory. Are they RAW?

[Karnith]

Another error in the FAQ that is pretty clear-cut:

Does Quick Draw (PH page 98) allow you to sheathe a weapon as a free action?
No. Quick Draw clearly states that it allows you to “draw a weapon as a free action.” Nowhere does it suggest anything about sheathing a weapon more quickly than normal (a move action).
You might be confusing Quick Draw with the ability of any character with a base attack bonus of +1 or better to draw or sheathe a weapon as a free action as part of movement (PH 142). While these functions are similar and overlap to some extent, they are different.
(Emphasis mine)

The relevant rules section is in the Actions in Combat section of the PHB (and the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#draworSheatheaWeapon) uses identical language minus page references, so I'll quote that), for Drawing or Sheathing a weapon.

Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item.

If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.

Drawing ammunition for use with a ranged weapon (such as arrows, bolts, sling bullets, or shuriken) is a free action.
(Emphasis mine)
The FAQ seems to think that you can sheathe a weapon as a free action accompanying a regular move if you have a BAB of +1 or higher, when in fact the relevant rules (which are even cited in the FAQ) allow no such action.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It's written and official but it's not game rules. It's reviews and answers regarding the already written rules after the fact. It was intended to clarify how the actual game rules work but loses all credibility in light of the fact that a number of those answers are in direct opposition to very clear segments of RAW.

So once again: the FAQ is not RAW.


Haven't seen the oberoni fallacy matched quite this cleanly in a while. I feel like I should award some sort of morbid kudos.



It's not the rules because it's not rules at all. It's rulings. There's a difference.

The FAQ doesn't expand, modify, or remove anything from RAW. It's only clarifications being made by someone who's reading the existing rules and making judgement calls. Given that some of those calls are blatantly wrong, the judgement of the document's author(s) is called into question.

Btw, "nuh-uh" isn't a valid argument, no matter how verbosely it's said.

This is what I had to say on the matter in the other thread. Irrelevant portions struck out.

[Threadnaught]

I'm just here until Pickford tells me when a Lion Totem Barbarian without a Rake attack, is allowed to use it's Pounce ACF.

When Pickford? When?

[BowStreetRunner]

The principle of the FAQ was never to replace or even to supplement the rules, only to explain them. It is not intended as a primary source nor an errata, is is merely intended as an explanation of the primary sources and errata.

Had the FAQ been developed properly, there would be no issue. People who have trouble understanding the rules could look at the FAQ and be directed back to the relevant rules in such a way as to increase their understanding.

The problem with the FAQ is the inconsistencies. There are too many times when something was misstated in the FAQ and they never went back to correct it. Where an inconsistency in the rules is discovered, it should be updated in the errata and then corrected in later versions of the rules. When an inconsistency in the FAQ is discovered, it should be corrected in the FAQ. The FAQ should never be considered a substitute for the rules.

[olentu]

I don't think that specific overrides general trumps the primary source rule in that way. The FAQ lacks even the beginnings of the authority to invoke specific rulings, so it falls flat before it even begins. The FAQ is neither a rulebook, nor is it errata, so it can not change the rules. You're going to need more justification for the claim that specific overrides general trumps the primary source rules than just saying that it's true.

Look, here's the thing about the primary source rule, it exists to resolve conflicts between two rules sources.

"When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct."

I would like to emphasize the bit about "two D&D® rules sources" in the primary source rule.

If you are invoking the primary source rule with regards to the FAQ then you are admitting by the very nature of said primary source rule that the FAQ is a D&D® rules source. And since the FAQ is in a written format it would then be RAW.

[mattie_p]

Look, here's the thing about the primary source rule, it exists to resolve conflicts between two rules sources.

"When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct."

I would like to emphasize the bit about "two D&D® rules sources" in the primary source rule.

If you are invoking the primary source rule with regards to the FAQ then you are admitting by the very nature of said primary source rule that the FAQ is a D&D® rules source. And since the FAQ is in a written format it would then be RAW.

But in this case, using this rule, the FAQ is never a primary source, as it does not introduce rules. The rules for anthropomorphic animals are in Savage Species, the FAQ would then be a secondary source (as it does not say it is an errata file).

[olentu]

But in this case, using this rule, the FAQ is never a primary source, as it does not introduce rules. The rules for anthropomorphic animals are in Savage Species, the FAQ would then be a secondary source (as it does not say it is an errata file).

That goes back to the question of if the lack of a rule is a rule. It is not really relevant to the question of whether the FAQ is RAW since the whole lack of rule thing involves the primary source rule which only apples between two rules sources.

Now that is not to say that the FAQ is RAW but rather that invoking the primary source rule requires the assumption that the two things in disagreement are D&D® rules sources. There may be some argument that makes the FAQ not RAW but the primary source rule is not it.

[mattie_p]

That goes back to the question of if the lack of a rule is a rule. It is not really relevant to the question of whether the FAQ is RAW since the whole lack of rule thing involves the primary source rule which only apples between two rules sources.

Now that is not to say that the FAQ is RAW but rather that invoking the primary source rule requires the assumption that the two things in disagreement are D&D® rules sources. There may be some argument that makes the FAQ not RAW but the primary source rule is not it.

So, I'm not sure what you're saying.

I think you are saying that if you assume the FAQ is RAW, then and only then the primary/secondary source rule from the errata takes effect. But you can't use that conclusion to deduce that the FAQ is RAW, as it relies on an assumption. Do I have it right?

[TypoNinja]

Another error in the FAQ that is pretty clear-cut:

(Emphasis mine)

The relevant rules section is in the Actions in Combat section of the PHB (and the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#draworSheatheaWeapon) uses identical language minus page references, so I'll quote that), for Drawing or Sheathing a weapon.

(Emphasis mine)
The FAQ seems to think that you can sheathe a weapon as a free action accompanying a regular move if you have a BAB of +1 or higher, when in fact the relevant rules (which are even cited in the FAQ) allow no such action.

It also falls on its face explaining why some Epic PrC's still have base save and BAB progressions. It suggests adopting house rules instead of the blindingly obvious. Those progressions still matter for the monsters, who don't follow PC Epic progression rules.

My problem with the FAQ is that its supposed to be an authority, but really there's more than a few people on these boards who could have done a better job. Though to be fair, I believe at least a couple places where the FAQ is wrong is because the FAQ ruled one way on a grey area, then Errata was released that clarified the opposite ruling.

If it was Skip Williams and Monte Cooke manning the FAQ we'd have something awesome, but it looks more like its some random employee, which is a shame.

I think the FAQ is a great resource for more casual players, and newer groups who might not be quite so comfortable making their own sweeping judgements just yet, or don't have 50 books to dive through for obscure rules. (Mining rules are in a really strange place). On the other hand, to an Optimization community accuracy and reliability are a far more important, and the FAQ has neither.

[Pickford]

Another error in the FAQ that is pretty clear-cut:

(Emphasis mine)

The relevant rules section is in the Actions in Combat section of the PHB (and the SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/actionsInCombat.htm#draworSheatheaWeapon) uses identical language minus page references, so I'll quote that), for Drawing or Sheathing a weapon.

(Emphasis mine)
The FAQ seems to think that you can sheathe a weapon as a free action accompanying a regular move if you have a BAB of +1 or higher, when in fact the relevant rules (which are even cited in the FAQ) allow no such action.


edit: Sorry Karnith I deleted it by accident while editing!
But is it actually wrong in answering the question as asked? "Does Quickdraw let you sheathe a weapon as a free action?" answer: No.

edit: Mattie, the answer is right there.

1) The MM says Pounce is a special attack.

2) Savage Species is saying that Special Attacks are, as a class, attacks given by virtue of the form.

[Karnith]

But is it actually wrong in answering the question as asked?
No, but it proves that the author of the FAQ has an incomplete and/or flawed understanding of the D&D rules. Which is a problem in a document that, you know, claims to clarify the rules of the game. Were you to believe the FAQ, you might believe that you can sheathe a weapon as a free action as part of a regular move, when in fact the rules allow no such thing.

EDIT:
2) Savage Species is saying that Special Attacks are, as a class, attacks given by virtue of the form.
Um, source? The Anthropomorphic template specifies that the creature loses any special attacks that rely on a nonhumanoid shape. That does not, by any stretch, mean that all special attacks are shape-dependent.

[olentu]

So, I'm not sure what you're saying.

I think you are saying that if you assume the FAQ is RAW, then and only then the primary/secondary source rule from the errata takes effect. But you can't use that conclusion to deduce that the FAQ is RAW, as it relies on an assumption. Do I have it right?

No. It is that if you don't agree that FAQ is RAW then the primary source rule does not apply. Thus applying the primary source rule means that the FAQ is RAW and the discussion is already resolved.

[eggynack]

Look, here's the thing about the primary source rule, it exists to resolve conflicts between two rules sources.

"When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules
sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the
primary source is correct."

I would like to emphasize the bit about "two D&D® rules sources" in the primary source rule.

If you are invoking the primary source rule with regards to the FAQ then you are admitting by the very nature of said primary source rule that the FAQ is a D&D® rules source. And since the FAQ is in a written format it would then be RAW.
What? That's the exact opposite of how it works. If the FAQ is a rules source, at all, it is never a primary source, because its only purpose is commentary on rules that exist. Thus, it can never be RAW. If the FAQ is not a rules source, then the FAQ is not a rules source. In no situation is the FAQ RAW. Your claims are quite illogical.

[mattie_p]

edit: Mattie, the answer is right there.

1) The MM says Pounce is a special attack.

2) Savage Species is saying that Special Attacks are, as a class, attacks given by virtue of the form.

1) This is a true statement.

2) This is a false statement. It is saying that, for the purposes of anthropomorphic animals, special attacks that rely upon non-humanoid form are no longer available. A Badger has the special attack of rage. An anthropomorphic badger would still have this special attack, as form has nothing to do with it. An elephant has the special attack of trample. An anthropomorphic elephant still has the special attack of trample, as it doesn't depend on form, just size.

A leopard has the special attacks of improved grab, pounce, and rake. An anthropomorphic leopard loses rake explicitly, keeps its bite attack and its improved grab special ability. But why would pounce go away, when I've provided examples where pounce has nothing to do with form, and everything to do with the innate abilities of the creature?

[olentu]

What? That's the exact opposite of how it works. If the FAQ is a rules source, at all, it is never a primary source, because its only purpose is commentary on rules that exist. Thus, it can never be RAW. If the FAQ is not a rules source, then the FAQ is not a rules source. In no situation is the FAQ RAW. Your claims are quite illogical.

Ah, I see what you are trying to say. You are not saying that the FAQ is not RAW, rather you are saying that even though the FAQ is RAW everything in the FAQ is unequivocally wrong.

Like I said earlier this goes back to the whole "lack of a rule rule" thing which is unimportant to the question of the FAQ being RAW since the primary source rule only applies to two pieces of RAW.

[mattie_p]

Why would pounce go away, when I've provided examples where pounce has nothing to do with form, and everything to do with the innate abilities of the creature?

Following up on this with a cross-post from the previous discussion thread.


If having pounce is dependant upon rake (no where in the pounce description does it state this, by the way), then how does a 7 HD feral creature gain pounce? It only gets rake if it has 8 HD. Savage Species 116.

Would you prefer core? The Deinonychus (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/dinosaur.htm#deinonychus) gains pounce without having rake. As does the megaraptor. And the dragonne. And the red Slaad.

Now, sample creatures are well known for being flawed examples. But the feral template is explicit. What about creatures that get rake but no pounce such as the Behir (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/behir.htm)? Just because they are sometimes associated does not mean they always are. Correlation does not equal causation and all that.

[eggynack]

Ah, I see what you are trying to say. You are not saying that the FAQ is not RAW, rather you are saying that even though the FAQ is RAW everything in the FAQ is unequivocally wrong.

Like I said earlier this goes back to the whole "lack of a rule rule" thing which is unimportant to the question of the FAQ being RAW since the primary source rule only applies to two pieces of RAW.
I guess. It's not really meaningful as RAW though, because you can't actually read it to learn the rules as written. Basically, the situation where it's a completely meaningless rules source is the best case scenario. I guess that a rules source where everything that tries to change or alter the rules in any way is wrong, can be considered a source of RAW. It's a rather pedantic definition of the term though, and it's not the one I'd go with. It's a "rules source" in only the most cursory of ways, because it'd be a rules source that can't be used as a source for rules. It's kinda paradoxical like that. If it's a "rules source", it can't be considered a source for rules, so it's not a rules source, and the thing you used to prove that it wasn't a source for rules becomes invalid. Fortunately, both ends of the paradox lead to the FAQ being utterly pointless, so the only point in analyzing the specifics of it is to appease my love of paradoxes. Granted, that would be an inherently noble course to pursue, but it's not really that important from a broader perspective. I usually just shorthand this whole paragraph with, "the FAQ is not RAW." I don't know if it's technically accurate, but it's accurate in every single way that matters.

[Pickford]

Where are you seeing in the MM that rake can't be on an animal with <8HD?

[Karnith]

Where are you seeing in the MM that rake can't be on an animal with <8HD?
He's referring to the Feral template, in Savage Species, which grants the Pounce ability to creatures with at least 4 RHD, and the Rake ability to creatures with at least 8 RHD.

[olentu]

Things.

Oh, I don't agree with your assumption that supplements can never expand upon the rules in the areas that the existing rules do not answer, but as I have said before with a difference in assumption this fundamental causing the conflict I don't see a means of resolution. Perhaps I will be up for pointless debate on that subject later, but at the moment I am rather apathetic about that.

In any case that is a different argument then whether or not the FAQ is RAW. If you want to prove the FAQ is not RAW then you can't use the primary source rule for that.

[eggynack]

Oh, I don't agree with your assumption that supplements can never expand upon the rules in the areas that the existing rules do not answer, but as I have said before with a difference in assumption this fundamental causing the conflict I don't see a means of resolution. Perhaps I will be up for pointless debate on that subject later, but at the moment I am rather apathetic about that.

In any case that is a different argument then whether or not the FAQ is RAW. If you want to prove the FAQ is not RAW then you can't use the primary source rule for that.
What does RAW even mean to you? There is no situation in which the FAQ is a source for the rules, so it is not RAW. I don't know if an actual supplement can hold authority over something like prerequisite rules, as has come up in the past, but that's at least a primary source for something. The FAQ is never a primary source for anything, so it can never be a source for rules. If you're fine with having RAW not effect the rules in any way, I suppose that's your prerogative. I think we need an actual definition for RAW, before we can have an argument of definition. In this case, what you have is a strictly secondary rules source, which means that it can never be used in an argument over the rules to the game. My definition of RAW is the actual set of rules that the game abides by, when all is said and done. The FAQ defines none of those, so it is not RAW.

[Pickford]

He's referring to the Feral template, in Savage Species, which grants the Pounce ability to creatures with at least 4 RHD, and the Rake ability to creatures with at least 8 RHD.

Interesting.

Incidentally I just went through the MM, no Animal that has Pounce lacks Rake.

Actually the list appears to be: Leopard, Lion, Tiger.
edit: The other obvious commonality is they all have claw attacks.

[mattie_p]

Interesting.

Incidentally I just went through the MM, no Animal that has Pounce lacks Rake.

Actually the list appears to be: Leopard, Lion, Tiger.
edit: The other obvious commonality is they all have claw attacks.

I'm afraid that is incorrect.


The Deinonychus gains pounce without having rake. As does the megaraptor. And the dragonne. And the red Slaad.

See above where I quoted this already.

As to your second part, the Shrieking Terror from MM3 has only bite attacks and yet gains pounce. Not to mention, anthro lions, tigers, and leopards keep their claws.

[olentu]

What does RAW even mean to you? There is no situation in which the FAQ is a source for the rules, so it is not RAW. I don't know if an actual supplement can hold authority over something like prerequisite rules, as has come up in the past, but that's at least a primary source for something. The FAQ is never a primary source for anything, so it can never be a source for rules. If you're fine with having RAW not effect the rules in any way, I suppose that's your prerogative. I think we need an actual definition for RAW, before we can have an argument of definition. In this case, what you have is a strictly secondary rules source, which means that it can never be used in an argument over the rules to the game. My definition of RAW is the actual set of rules that the game abides by, when all is said and done. The FAQ defines none of those, so it is not RAW.

I can't really think of how to explain what my position on the FAQ would be if I were to say it is RAW better then my previous post. Perhaps later I will come up with something but for now I can devise no better method of explanation. Sorry, but explaining such a fundamental difference in assumption is not always the easiest thing.

[eggynack]

I can't really think of how to explain what my position on the FAQ would be if I were to say it is RAW better then my previous post. Perhaps later I will come up with something but for now I can devise no better method of explanation. Sorry, but explaining such a fundamental difference in assumption is not always the easiest thing.
I guess. Arguments of definition based on weird terms are always a bit on the odd side. I think the important thing is that the FAQ is utterly irrelevant for rules arguments. Past that, it's mostly pedantry. I think that's the main thing that is meant by, "the FAQ is not RAW," anyways. I mean, if you disagree with my central premise, that there is absolutely no actual purpose to citing the FAQ in rules arguments, that'd be a different thing. However, I don't think that's a point on which our opinions diverge.

[olentu]

I guess. Arguments of definition based on weird terms are always a bit on the odd side. I think the important thing is that the FAQ is utterly irrelevant for rules arguments. Past that, it's mostly pedantry. I think that's the main thing that is meant by, "the FAQ is not RAW," anyways. I mean, if you disagree with my central premise, that there is absolutely no actual purpose to citing the FAQ in rules arguments, that'd be a different thing. However, I don't think that's a point on which our opinions diverge.

As I said I don't agree with your assumption but with a difference this fundamental causing the conflict I don't see a means of resolution. Perhaps I will be up for pointless debate on that subject later, but at the moment I am rather apathetic about that. You are free to believe whatever you want.

[eggynack]

As I said I don't agree with your assumption but with a difference this fundamental causing the conflict I don't see a means of resolution. Perhaps I will be up for pointless debate on that subject later, but at the moment I am rather apathetic about that. You are free to believe whatever you want.
So, if you think that someone can use the FAQ as a source of rules for arguments and such, what's your justification for that? It seems like my resolution is completely effective, so just saying that it isn't without evidence is a bit on the meaningless side. If the FAQ is source of rules, it's a secondary source, and thus pointless. If it's not a source of rules, it's not a source of rules, and is thus pointless. I can't see a third option on this one.

[olentu]

So, if you think that someone can use the FAQ as a source of rules for arguments and such, what's your justification for that? It seems like my resolution is completely effective, so just saying that it isn't without evidence is a bit on the meaningless side. If the FAQ is source of rules, it's a secondary source, and thus pointless. If it's not a source of rules, it's not a source of rules, and is thus pointless. I can't see a third option on this one.

And once again we are back at the "lack of a rule rule" disagreement in assumption. I won't bother to reiterate what I have said before on the matter.

[eggynack]

And once again we are back at the "lack of a rule rule" disagreement in assumption. I won't bother to reiterate what I have said before on the matter.
I wish you would. I'm still not entirely sure what you mean by that. I guess that there's no rule saying that things that aren't the source of rules aren't a rules source. That seems like one of those self-evident things though. I can't whip out the rules to Monopoly in a game of 3.5, because the Monopoly rules aren't a rules source for 3.5. I can't currently imagine a set of circumstances in which the FAQ can be used in a useful way, so it'd be nice if you'd construct one.

[mattie_p]

I wish you would. I'm still not entirely sure what you mean by that. I guess that there's no rule saying that things that aren't the source of rules aren't a rules source. That seems like one of those self-evident things though. I can't whip out the rules to Monopoly in a game of 3.5, because the Monopoly rules aren't a rules source for 3.5. I can't currently imagine a set of circumstances in which the FAQ can be used in a useful way, so it'd be nice if you'd construct one.

Honestly, the FAQ is useful for trying to get at RAI, in my opinion. It also, for the most part, agrees with RAW. I noted that the first discrepancy I found was on page 3. However, that means it answered 7 questions right (IMO) before getting one wrong. The next one I seriously looked at was on page 10 or so. So if you are running a game and in the middle of a battle or something and a question comes up, why not look at the FAQ? 9 time out of 10 they get it right, so odds are if it addresses the situation it might be right as well.

[eggynack]

Honestly, the FAQ is useful for trying to get at RAI, in my opinion. It also, for the most part, agrees with RAW. I noted that the first discrepancy I found was on page 3. However, that means it answered 7 questions right (IMO) before getting one wrong. The next one I seriously looked at was on page 10 or so. So if you are running a game and in the middle of a battle or something and a question comes up, why not look at the FAQ? 9 time out of 10 they get it right, so odds are if it addresses the situation it might be right as well.
I suppose that is a useful way to use the FAQ, so by my wording, you're correct. I should probably reword it. My question is whether there is ever a potential situation where the FAQ would be useful for settling RAW based rule disputes. Like, one person says, "Check out this thing on this page," and the other guy says, "Wait though, the FAQ says you are wrong," and the FAQ has successfully settled the issue, based on the rules to the game. I suppose that a good way to think of it is based on the idea of a RAW computer. If there were a computer that solved RAW disputes, would there be any point to having the FAQ on there? My assertion is that the answer is "No."

[JaronK]

I don't think that specific overrides general trumps the primary source rule in that way.

Specific ALWAYS overrides general. Primary source rule is irrelevant unless two rulings are equally specific (such as the various rules on spell like abilities for swift action spells). Since that's not the case here, claiming primary source rules is a complete red herring. It would be like saying that the Hexblade doesn't exist because the PHB says they're 11 base classes, and since the PHB is the primary source, Hexblades don't exist.

If it's any official thing put out by WotC, and it's more specific, it trumps. No exceptions. And since it's called the Official Rules FAQ, it's official rules.

JaronK

[mattie_p]

I suppose that is a useful way to use the FAQ, so by my wording, you're correct. I should probably reword it. My question is whether there is ever a potential situation where the FAQ would be useful for settling RAW based rule disputes. Like, one person says, "Check out this thing on this page," and the other guy says, "Wait though, the FAQ says you are wrong," and the FAQ has successfully settled the issue, based on the rules to the game. I suppose that a good way to think of it is based on the idea of a RAW computer. If there were a computer that solved RAW disputes, would there be any point to having the FAQ on there? My assertion is that the answer is "No."

I don't think a computer programmed according to WoTC 3.5 errata rules would ever consult the FAQ, or, dare I say it, the Ask Wizards column (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/askwiz). *shudder*

[eggynack]

Specific ALWAYS overrides general. Primary source rule is irrelevant unless two rulings are equally specific (such as the various rules on spell like abilities for swift action spells). Since that's not the case here, claiming primary source rules is a complete red herring. It would be like saying that the Hexblade doesn't exist because the PHB says they're 11 base classes, and since the PHB is the primary source, Hexblades don't exist.

If it's any official thing put out by WotC, and it's more specific, it trumps. No exceptions. And since it's called the Official Rules FAQ, it's official rules.

JaronK
My argument is that the FAQ has no specific rules to override past general rules, because the FAQ just doesn't have any rules. New books that have new information overwrite the information in old books, because they're the primary sources about what they're talking about. That's how specific overriding general works. The FAQ is never a primary source about anything, so it has absolutely no authority to construct specific rules in the first place. These are rulings, not rules, and unlike errata, or (maybe) the rules compendium, the FAQ has no standing on this front. I assert that specific versus general is a red herring for that reason. This isn't the FAQ saying that hexblades do exist, and creating the rules for them. This is the FAQ saying that bards don't exist, and wiping them out of existence. If it were doing the former, it could, because it would be the primary source on that issue. It can not do the latter, because it is not a primary source on that issue.

[olentu]

I wish you would. I'm still not entirely sure what you mean by that. I guess that there's no rule saying that things that aren't the source of rules aren't a rules source. That seems like one of those self-evident things though. I can't whip out the rules to Monopoly in a game of 3.5, because the Monopoly rules aren't a rules source for 3.5. I can't currently imagine a set of circumstances in which the FAQ can be used in a useful way, so it'd be nice if you'd construct one.

It is literally just going to be a post that I have made before since I have no new way of phrasing things. If you really want I can post it again but if it did not help before I doubt it will help now. And of course it seems like one of those self evident things since it is a fundamental assumption. That is also what makes it so hard to resolve since it is the kind of assumption that people don't even think about making most of the time.

[eggynack]

It is literally just going to be a post that I have made before since I have no new way of phrasing things. If you really want I can post it again but if it did not help before I doubt it will help now. And of course it seems like one of those self evident things since it is a fundamental assumption. That is also what makes it so hard to resolve since it is the kind of assumption that people don't even think about making most of the time.
It's not so much a fundamental assumption as a tautology. If something isn't a rule source, it is not a source of rules. If you disagree with that statement, I'm not really sure how that's justifiable.

[olentu]

It's not so much a fundamental assumption as a tautology. If something isn't a rule source, it is not a source of rules. If you disagree with that statement, I'm not really sure how that's justifiable.

What, that is not what I am talking about at all. I thought we had already moved past the whole rules source thing. All right, to reiterate the primary source rule only applies to D&D® rules sources. If you are applying the primary source rule to the FAQ then it must be a D&D® rules source. Since the FAQ is a D&D® rules source and it is in a written format then it is RAW. That is, as I said, not what I was talking about with the whole fundamental disagreement but clearly it is even harder to explain then I thought. I'll keep thinking about how to explain, but I am not especially optimistic.

[JaronK]

My argument is that the FAQ has no specific rules to override past general rules, because the FAQ just doesn't have any rules.

Of course it does. For example, it has the rule that Bloodlines do not count for purposes of Druid Animal Companions. That's a specific rule that is clearly spelled out in the FAQ, which trumps the more general rule in UA that Bloodlines count for all abilities based on level.

I might not like the rule, but it's there.


New books that have new information overwrite the information in old books, because they're the primary sources about what they're talking about.

False. The primary sources are actually spelled out... the PHB is the primary source for standard (base) classes, feats, and skills, for example. The Monster Manual is the primary source for Special Abilities. The DMG is the primary source for PrCs. There is no "new books overwrite old books" rule anywhere.

The primary source rule in fact only applies to the PHB, DMG, and MM1 (in terms of what book trumps what). Here it is, in total:


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.

That's it. That's the only primary source rule in the game. There is no other.

JaronK

[eggynack]

What, that is not what I am talking about at all. I thought we had already moved past the whole rules source thing. All right, to reiterate the primary source rule only applies to D&D® rules sources. If you are applying the primary source rule to the FAQ then it must be a D&D® rules source. Since the FAQ is a D&D® rules source and it is in a written format then it is RAW. That is, as I said, not what I was talking about with the whole fundamental disagreement but clearly it is even harder to explain then I thought. I'll keep thinking about how to explain, but I am not especially optimistic.
Why are you conflating RAW with being a rules source? I think that's the source of the issue. There are some contradictions in the rules, and if there are, the incorrect rule is not RAW. RAW refers to the actual base level rules of the game, not just any rules source that is written down. For example, in the PHB, it says that wild shaping is based off of polymorph. Despite this being a written rule, it is not RAW, because the errata replaces it. You couldn't use that line as proof in a RAW argument, because of the supremacy of errata. Now, consider the FAQ. Basically, it is a rules source, but it is entirely secondary in nature. Thus, its relationship to the primary sources is the same as the primary sources' relationship to errata. Effectively, everything in the FAQ is errated over, so nothing in the FAQ is RAW. This isn't the exact definition for what is happening, but it is an apt analogy. Thus, the FAQ can act as a rules source, without being RAW.

[eggynack]

The primary source rule in fact only applies to the PHB, DMG, and MM1 (in terms of what book trumps what). Here it is, in total:

That's it. That's the only primary source rule in the game. There is no other.

JaronK
Those are all just examples. I'm specifically referring to the line, "The Player's Handbook, for example," here. Just as the Player's Handbook is the primary source on classes, and the Monster Manual is the primary source on monsters, Complete Champion is the primary source on devotion feats. If anything can be defined as a primary source about a topic, it takes precedence on that topic, because of the first part of that errata. The FAQ is not the primary source on any topic, so it doesn't take precedence on any topics.

[olentu]

Why are you conflating RAW with being a rules source? I think that's the source of the issue. There are some contradictions in the rules, and if there are, the incorrect rule is not RAW. RAW refers to the actual base level rules of the game, not just any rules source that is written down. For example, in the PHB, it says that wild shaping is based off of polymorph. Despite this being a written rule, it is not RAW, because the errata replaces it. You couldn't use that line as proof in a RAW argument, because of the supremacy of errata. Now, consider the FAQ. Basically, it is a rules source, but it is entirely secondary in nature. Thus, its relationship to the primary sources is the same as the primary sources' relationship to errata. Effectively, everything in the FAQ is errated over, so nothing in the FAQ is RAW. This isn't the exact definition for what is happening, but it is an apt analogy. Thus, the FAQ can act as a rules source, without being RAW.

Look, if it is rules and it is written then it is part of the rules as written. What the rules have to say about anything depends on many things, such as default assumptions, publication dates, specific overruling as in the rules compendium, etc. but all that is a part of the rules. Sometimes conflicting rules exist (which is why we have things such as the primary source rule and specific overriding general to resolve these conflicts) and sometimes the rules are completely silent on a subject. Sometimes the rules are even ambiguous to the point that there is no answer but all of these things are still the rules.


Edit:

Those are all just examples. I'm specifically referring to the line, "The Player's Handbook, for example," here. Just as the Player's Handbook is the primary source on classes, and the Monster Manual is the primary source on monsters, Complete Champion is the primary source on devotion feats. If anything can be defined as a primary source about a topic, it takes precedence on that topic, because of the first part of that errata. The FAQ is not the primary source on any topic, so it doesn't take precedence on any topics.

Hold on a second there. Did you just claim that you can define with absolute certainty what a vague open ended statement does and does not apply to.

[TypoNinja]

The FAQ's problem is that it makes rulings but contains no rules.

Its a paid DM answering your questions about possible RAI issues. Its not a rule book. The FAQ never says anything new, it always references actual rule text when explaining itself. The FAQ is interpreting the rules for you, but hasn't actually given you any new rules.

Understanding the difference between a rule and a ruling is important here. the FAQ only gives you The Sage's interpretation, his opinion on how rules should work. An opinion might be useful, it might not, but it does not make the text of his answers RAW.

RAW which in case it slipped your mind stands for Rules As Written. The FAQ contains no Rules. It contains only text saying what the rules might or might not allow in a given case.

Dragon magazines can be RAW, because they actually introduce or modify rules. A new feat, items, magic spells, monsters stat blocks, locations, ect. These things are rules. The FAQ has no rules, just statements on how The Sage thinks the rules work. Much like our Simple Q&A thread.

The fact that all FAQ questions don't also make it into Errata should be pretty telling on how "Official" a source it is.

[mattie_p]

The FAQ's problem is that it makes rulings but contains no rules. That is an excellent way of putting it.


The FAQ has no rules, just statements on how The Sage thinks the rules work. Much like our Simple Q&A thread.

The fact that all FAQ questions don't also make it into Errata should be pretty telling on how "Official" a source it is.

Except our Simple Q&A thread has multiple eyes, allows for discussion and differences of opinion on how the various rules interact, and sometimes results in an answer that is overruled after further discussion.

[Pickford]

That is an excellent way of putting it.

Except our Simple Q&A thread has multiple eyes, allows for discussion and differences of opinion on how the various rules interact, and sometimes results in an answer that is overruled after further discussion.

Except the Q&A thread is not officially produced by WoTC, the FAQ is. That's really all there is to it. WoTC put out a product on their Web site, that makes it RAW no matter what you or I might otherwise want.

edit: We can of course ignore it at will in any game we run, but that doesn't invalidate it. Homebrew is of course totally acceptable in this game.

[mattie_p]

Except the Q&A thread is not officially produced by WoTC, the FAQ is. That's really all there is to it. WoTC put out a product on their Web site, that makes it RAW no matter what you or I might otherwise want.

edit: We can of course ignore it at will in any game we run, but that doesn't invalidate it. Homebrew is of course totally acceptable in this game.

You're right, and we never claim that our answers in that thread are WoTC endorsed or approved. We review the RAW and provide our best interpretation of the RAW to answer the questions provided. Which is that the FAQ did, they were asked a question about the RAW and provided their best intrepretation, which was sadly incorrect in at least one case, and they never bothered to correct it.

[JaronK]

I think everyone who wants to claim the FAQ isn't rules or isn't official should make sure to state the full name of the area the FAQ is found in when they make their arguments.

It's called the "Official D&D Game Rule FAQ". See here: https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a

JaronK

[ericgrau]

Right which makes it the official FAQ. So I half agree.

Errata > RAW > FAQ.

It is opinions on the rules written by the people who wrote the rules. They can sometimes make mistakes, but I'd usually take their opinion to be much much higher than anyone else's opinion on what RAW is. At least until I saw clear evidence to the contrary, not only "FAQ isn't RAW". That's nice, what you say about what the RAW means is just your opinion too. But you didn't write the system. What you see RAW to be isn't necessarily RAW, shocker! Especially when there's a confusing rule and we're all trying to figure out what it means, you can't say "It says this which absolutely must mean this, that's the RAW!!"

[mattie_p]

At least until I saw clear evidence to the contrary, not only "FAQ isn't RAW". That's nice, what you say about what the RAW means is just your opinion too.

What would you consider to be clear evidence to the contrary?

[eggynack]

Hold on a second there. Did you just claim that you can define with absolute certainty what a vague open ended statement does and does not apply to.
I would assert so, yeah. The primary source for something is the first source, and the defining source on a topic. The first books to come out introduced things, so they are the ultimate reference points on that topic. Later books introduced other things, often far more specific, so they are the ultimate reference points on those topics. Now, we can go back and forth all day on what specifically constitutes a primary source on certain topics, and how things apply in edge cases, in a manner similar to the argument about complete warrior and prerequisites. However, this isn't like that. The FAQ, by its very nature, can never be a primary source. As long as it's commenting on preexisting rules, it will always be a secondary source. It doesn't matter if it's a home made secondary source, or an official secondary source, because I don't see anything in the rule I posted that makes a provision for official secondary sources taking precedence over official primary sources. to be more specific, there is one, and it's called "errata".

[Hecuba]

It's called the "Official D&D Game Rule FAQ". See here: https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a

JaronK

I don't think the "official"-ness is at question. I think it's the "rule"-ness.

If we had a thread in this forum called "Unofficial D&D game rule FAQ," the content of that thread would be Frequently Asked Questions about the rules and the relevant answers.

Would you hold such questions and answers to be rules (official or not), or would you hold them to be structured discussions about the rules?

[JaronK]

Since it would be a thread in this forum, it's just the forum members' opinions. They would not be rules, because we do not have the authority to make anything other than house rules. But it could have house rules.

When the FAQ changes the rules (for example what it does with Bloodlines and Animal Companions), that's a rule change, just like the Monster Manual changed the rules on Spell Like Abilities that simulate faster than standard action casting spells.

And again, it's the Official Game RULE FAQ. No way around the fact that it's A) Official and B) Rules. It's right there in the title. Notice that it's written down, so it's Rules As Written.

JaronK

[NEO|Phyte]

And again, it's the Official Game RULE FAQ. No way around the fact that it's A) Official and B) Rules. It's right there in the title. Notice that it's written down, so it's Rules As Written.
It is the Official D&D Game Rule FAQ.

It is the Official FAQ about the D&D Game Rule(s).

It is not rules, it is questions about rules, and the answers provided by whoever is answering the questions. (usually the Sage, as I understand it)

[Asrrin]

I think what olentu means to say is that in order to invoke the rule, "When two or more D&D® rules source...ect." you must first assume that you have two rules sources. If you are comparing a core rulebook to the FAQ, you assume the FAQ is a rules source. If the FAQ is a rules source, it is RAW.

Ergo, if you want to say that the FAQ is not RAW, you cannot invoke the above rule for reasons just presented. You must use another line of reasoning to prove the FAQ is not RAW.

The correct way to go about determining if the FAQ is RAW is to ask two questions. Is it a rules source? Is it official errata to existing rules? If the answer to both of these questions is no, it is not RAW.

[JaronK]

It really doesn't matter if you think it's new rules or the official way to interpret existing rules (including where rules are changed). Either way, it's an official printed source and it's more specific than whatever it's answering things about, so it's always official and always the go to source.

Even if you don't like its answers (which I often don't).

JaronK

[eggynack]

I think what olentu means to say is that in order to invoke the rule, "When two or more D&D® rules source...ect." you must first assume that you have two rules sources. If you are comparing a core rulebook to the FAQ, you assume the FAQ is a rules source. If the FAQ is a rules source, it is RAW.

Ergo, if you want to say that the FAQ is not RAW, you cannot invoke the above rule for reasons just presented. You must use another line of reasoning to prove the FAQ is not RAW.

The correct way to go about determining if the FAQ is RAW is to ask two questions. Is it a rules source? Is it official errata to existing rules? If the answer to both of these questions is no, it is not RAW.
And I'm saying that this logic doesn't hold. If the FAQ is not a rules source, the only rule I have to invoke is that things that aren't rules sources aren't rules sources. Moreover, even if the FAQ is a rules source, that doesn't make it RAW. That's what I was mentioning a bit ago. If you were to consider the FAQ an intrinsically secondary rules source, every aspect of it that differed from a book in any way would cease to be RAW, so the FAQ isn't a necessary portion of RAW. Neither of these situations is conducive to the FAQ being RAW.

[eggynack]

It really doesn't matter if you think it's new rules or the official way to interpret existing rules (including where rules are changed). Either way, it's an official printed source and it's more specific than whatever it's answering things about, so it's always official and always the go to source.

Even if you don't like its answers (which I often don't).

JaronK
That's wrong though. If it's an official way to interpret existing rules, then it becomes overwritten by its intrinsic nature as a secondary source. The rules compendium and errata have specific parts within them that grant them authority, while the FAQ has no such aspect. It is always official, but it is never the go to source.

[BowStreetRunner]

It really doesn't matter if you think it's new rules or the official way to interpret existing rules (including where rules are changed).

Actually, you could easily argue that the FAQ is not RAW at all, but the very essence of RAI. :vaarsuvius:

[eggynack]

Actually, you could easily argue that the FAQ is not RAW at all, but the very essence of RAI. :vaarsuvius:
Quite so. "Official" RAI, but RAI nonetheless.

[mattie_p]

It really doesn't matter if you think it's new rules or the official way to interpret existing rules (including where rules are changed). Either way, it's an official printed source and it's more specific than whatever it's answering things about, so it's always official and always the go to source.

Even if you don't like its answers (which I often don't).

JaronK

OK, so here's a question, then. Which rule is more important, the primary vs. secondary source rule or the specific trumps general rule?

EDIT: Might as well throw in: Can we get a specific citation for the "later published replaces earlier published?" That gets tossed around a lot and if I had the source of that it would help.

[Hecuba]

EDIT: Might as well throw in: Can we get a specific citation for the "later published replaces earlier published?" That gets tossed around a lot and if I had the source of that it would help.

There is no such citation. The lack of this principle is actually somewhat problematic at points, as some of the later books seem to presume it exists.


It really doesn't matter if you think it's new rules or the official way to interpret existing rules (including where rules are changed). Either way, it's an official printed source and it's more specific than whatever it's answering things about, so it's always official and always the go to source.

Even if you don't like its answers (which I often don't).

JaronK

The measure isn't "printed source," it's "D&D® rules sources."
Either way, we would need to establish what a "source" is. Or at least whether the FAQ is a source.
Would you consider an author's lecture circuit discussions to be "sources" for the book they are discussing? It's certainly a source for the author's comments, and it's certainly about the book, but it would generally be cited as a separate oral work.

Thus we get back to the question: is the FAQ a source or a discussion about the sources?
More generally: are rulings rules?
To again provide an unofficial analog: is a DM-ruling the same as a house/table rule?

There is actually a real-world analog as well: Civil Law legal systems vs. Common Law legal systems.

In the later, official legal rulings constitute case law. Essentially, the ruling become a rule.
In the former, they do not.

To clarify: I personally agree with JaronK's position. I also happen to have a philosophical preference for Common Law systems.
But I do thing it depends on treating rulings as having equivalent precedence to rules, which I believe is neither unambiguously established nor something everyone would agree to postulate.

[olentu]

That is an excellent way of putting it.

Actually I would say it is a terrible way of putting it. If the FAQ is made up of rules then we can apply things like the primary source rule, the order of rules operation, etc. But when we change it from official WotC rules to the way WotC has officially ruled that the game is to be played it now becomes possible to say that people are playing the game wrong. And really no one wants that to become a thing.


I would assert so, yeah. The primary source for something is the first source, and the defining source on a topic. The first books to come out introduced things, so they are the ultimate reference points on that topic. Later books introduced other things, often far more specific, so they are the ultimate reference points on those topics. Now, we can go back and forth all day on what specifically constitutes a primary source on certain topics, and how things apply in edge cases, in a manner similar to the argument about complete warrior and prerequisites. However, this isn't like that. The FAQ, by its very nature, can never be a primary source. As long as it's commenting on preexisting rules, it will always be a secondary source. It doesn't matter if it's a home made secondary source, or an official secondary source, because I don't see anything in the rule I posted that makes a provision for official secondary sources taking precedence over official primary sources. to be more specific, there is one, and it's called "errata".

So, do you have any official definition of primary source you can present to back that up, or are you just making stuff up.


And I'm saying that this logic doesn't hold. If the FAQ is not a rules source, the only rule I have to invoke is that things that aren't rules sources aren't rules sources. Moreover, even if the FAQ is a rules source, that doesn't make it RAW. That's what I was mentioning a bit ago. If you were to consider the FAQ an intrinsically secondary rules source, every aspect of it that differed from a book in any way would cease to be RAW, so the FAQ isn't a necessary portion of RAW. Neither of these situations is conducive to the FAQ being RAW.

Like I said some parts of the rules contradict other parts but that does not suddenly make those rules stop being written down. The primary source rule that you are using so incorrectly exists only because it is possible that two rules disagree over a point.

Now if you want to argue that the FAQ is not a rules source at all that is fine, but you can not use the primary source rule to do so.


EDIT: Might as well throw in: Can we get a specific citation for the "later published replaces earlier published?" That gets tossed around a lot and if I had the source of that it would help.

Hmm, at the moment the only place I can recall seeing that rule is in the FAQ when I looked at it for the purposes of this thread, but certainly the publication date rule must exist somewhere else.

[JaronK]

OK, so here's a question, then. Which rule is more important, the primary vs. secondary source rule or the specific trumps general rule?

Specific beats general. Otherwise no later printing would ever do anything... the only Wizard/Sorcerer spell list would be the one in the PHB because the PHB is the primary source for spells. No later feats would exist because the PHB is the primary source for feats. And so on.


EDIT: Might as well throw in: Can we get a specific citation for the "later published replaces earlier published?" That gets tossed around a lot and if I had the source of that it would help.

Doesn't actually exist. It's just that when a book introduces a new rule, the new rule trumps because it's always more specific (lack of a rule in a primary source is less specific than existence of that rule in the new source).

JaronK

[eggynack]

So, do you have any official definition of primary source you can present to back that up, or are you just making stuff up.
I'm mostly just using the standard English definitions for things. That's what you do, in the absence of an in game definition. Check out the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source) on the topic for elaboration. I'm not going to quote the whole thing, but the line, "Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources," seems particularly enlightening.



Like I said some parts of the rules contradict other parts but that does not suddenly make those rules stop being written down. The primary source rule that you are using so incorrectly exists only because it is possible that two rules disagree over a point.

Now if you want to argue that the FAQ is not a rules source at all that is fine, but you can not use the primary source rule to do so.

I'm not using the rule incorrectly. There are two theoretical situations, one in which that rule applies, and one in which it doesn't. If the FAQ is a rules source, then it is a secondary rules source. RAW refers only to rules that actually effect the game state. For example, if I were to say, "Per the RAW, wild shape acts like polymorph," I would be wrong, because of the errata. It's still a rule, and it's still written down, but it's not a part of the RAW as it is used. Just because something's a rules source, doesn't make it RAW. You're saying those things are identical, and that's just not true.

In the second situation, the FAQ is not a rules source. In that case, the argument was over before it started. I'm mostly using the first situation, or else this argument is pointless. I can't use the primary source rule to prove that the FAQ isn't a rules source, but I can use it to prove that it's not RAW. Maybe it'd help if you defined what RAW means to you. What it means to me, basically comes back to the idea of a RAW supercomputer. In effect, the supercomputer would solve any given rules issue by consulting the rule books. My argument is that this super computer would find no purpose in having the FAQ. Do you think that it would have such a purpose? That's really what I'm asking.

[eggynack]

Specific beats general. Otherwise no later printing would ever do anything... the only Wizard/Sorcerer spell list would be the one in the PHB because the PHB is the primary source for spells. No later feats would exist because the PHB is the primary source for feats. And so on.

No, other later printed books would absolutely do something, because those books are primary sources. The PHB is only the primary source for feats in the general sense. If a later book came out that tried to change those general feat rules, the PHB would win out, due to the primary source rule. Complete Mage is the primary source for spells and prestige classes in Complete Mage, because that's where they come from originally. The FAQ is not the primary source for anything it says, so it gets overwritten any time there is a contradiction.

[olentu]

I'm mostly just using the standard English definitions for things. That's what you do, in the absence of an in game definition. Check out the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source) on the topic for elaboration. I'm not going to quote the whole thing, but the line, "Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources," seems particularly enlightening.


I'm not using the rule incorrectly. There are two theoretical situations, one in which that rule applies, and one in which it doesn't. If the FAQ is a rules source, then it is a secondary rules source. RAW refers only to rules that actually effect the game state. For example, if I were to say, "Per the RAW, wild shape acts like polymorph," I would be wrong, because of the errata. It's still a rule, and it's still written down, but it's not a part of the RAW as it is used. Just because something's a rules source, doesn't make it RAW. You're saying those things are identical, and that's just not true.

In the second situation, the FAQ is not a rules source. In that case, the argument was over before it started. I'm mostly using the first situation, or else this argument is pointless. I can't use the primary source rule to prove that the FAQ isn't a rules source, but I can use it to prove that it's not RAW. Maybe it'd help if you defined what RAW means to you. What it means to me, basically comes back to the idea of a RAW supercomputer. In effect, the supercomputer would solve any given rules issue by consulting the rule books. My argument is that this super computer would find no purpose in having the FAQ. Do you think that it would have such a purpose? That's really what I'm asking.

So you are using the english definition for a D&D rules term. Well that is the problem right there.

Oh, I see where the misunderstanding is coming from. When you saw RAW you don't mean the rules as written you mean the what you consider to be the correct ruling that is derived from the rules as written, which is not the same thing. Well in that case you are actually talking about the previous point and not whether or not the FAQ is a rules source (which it must be if one is to apply the primary source rule).

[eggynack]

So you are using the english definition for a D&D rules term. Well that is the problem right there.
I don't think that's a problem. Words default to their standard English definitions in the absence of an alternate definition. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that there would be whole swathes of the books that don't make sense.



Oh, I see where the misunderstanding is coming from. When you saw RAW you don't mean the rules as written you mean the what you consider to be the correct ruling that is derived from the rules as written, which is not the same thing. Well in that case you are actually talking about the previous point and not whether or not the FAQ is a rules source (which it must be if one is to apply the primary source rule).
It does seem to be where the misunderstanding is coming from, but I'm pretty sure that my definition of RAW is accurate. RAW is what you use to make decisions based on RAW. It's all rather pedantic though. If the FAQ is RAW, then as I mentioned previously, it's not RAW in any way that matters for a real game. Someone bringing it up to solve a rules dispute will always be wrong, unless the rules they're citing directly reflects something in an actual book.

I don't know if the FAQ qualifies as a rules source, but I tend to make my arguments assuming the best possible circumstances for the opposing argument, and then move downward. In this case, that was assuming that the FAQ is a rules source. On the topic of the FAQ potentially not being a rules source at all, I'm liking the argument that the FAQ is less a source of rules than a source of rulings. I'm probably less qualified to take that stance than other people who are, because I've been arguing on the line I've been arguing on. Still, it's an interesting position, and probably represents my views if this argument goes one step deeper.

[olentu]

I don't think that's a problem. Words default to their standard English definitions in the absence of an alternate definition. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure that there would be whole swathes of the books that don't make sense.


It does seem to be where the misunderstanding is coming from, but I'm pretty sure that my definition of RAW is accurate. RAW is what you use to make decisions based on RAW. It's all rather pedantic though. If the FAQ is RAW, then as I mentioned previously, it's not RAW in any way that matters for a real game. Someone bringing it up to solve a rules dispute will always be wrong, unless the rules they're citing directly reflects something in an actual book.

I don't know if the FAQ qualifies as a rules source, but I tend to make my arguments assuming the best possible circumstances for the opposing argument, and then move downward. In this case, that was assuming that the FAQ is a rules source. On the topic of the FAQ potentially not being a rules source at all, I'm liking the argument that the FAQ is less a source of rules than a source of rulings. I'm probably less qualified to take that stance than other people who are, because I've been arguing on the line I've been arguing on. Still, it's an interesting position, and probably represents my views if this argument goes one step deeper.

No, it is a problem because English is imprecise and has many definitions. For example, let us consider primary source. I believe that we can both agree that source is referring to rules source, so that is not a problem. Now we get to the word primary. For primary I have the following definitions, first or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal, basic, fundamental, first in order of time or development, first in order in any series, sequence, etc. Now let us consider just what these various things could mean with regards to the term "primary source".

First or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal. This would mean that the primary source is the source that is highest in rank. But what rank are they talking about. Clearly between text and table text is ranked highest, between the PHB and something else the PHB is ranked highest with regards to playing PC races, and so on. However we come across a problem as soon as we move beyond the explicitly listed comparisons. That problem being that we do not actually know what the various ranks are since we are not the developers. Thus it becomes impossible to say which is highest ranked among the two things being compared outside the explicitly defined examples. Thus if primary is being used to mean highest in rank or importance you are making stuff up.

Basic, fundamental. Now then if we are using this definition primary source would seem to mean the fundamental source. Now this could make sense in that the various core books are the most fundamental books with regards to the D&D rules. However we come across a problem once we move outside the explicitly defined examples. That problem being what constitutes a more fundamental rule. Is the thing published first more fundamental then those published after, meaning that reprinted rules are always wrong. Are setting specific books less fundamental then other books meaning that setting specific books are always wrong. And, of course, there is always the possibility that the fundamentals of the D&D system are limited to only those explicitly defined cases and all other things are equally not fundamental. As you can see we do not have the developers definition of what parts of the D&D system are fundamental meaning that if primary is being used to mean basic, fundamental you are making stuff up.

First in order of time or development. Yeah you are clearly not using this definition since you claim that later publications overrule previous publications. However this remains a valid use of primary. Thus if primary is not being used to mean first in order of time or development you are making stuff up.

First in order in any series, sequence. Well, once again this could work, but like the first or highest in rank or importance we do not know the ordering of all sequences of two rules and thus can not tell what is or is not a primary source beyond the explicitly defined cases. Thus if primary is being used to mean first in order in any series, sequence you are making stuff up.

And I think that is sufficient consideration of the vagaries of the English language to make my point that using English definitions is really not as cut and dried as you wish to make it out to be. Sure we have to use the English language to understand the rules but you are claiming to know the intent of the developer when you claim to know which definition is being used and how.

And again the second part really goes back to the first part except insomuch as the primary source rule can really not be used to claim that something is not a rules source. Perhaps the primary source rule can be used to say that some rules are overridden by other rules but that goes back to the previous explanation.

[eggynack]

Stuff about things.
I don't think you can separate the terms out like that. "Primary source" is a particular term with a particular meaning, distinct from the individual meanings of "primary" and "source". You make a good point that it can be difficult to judge which books qualify as primary sources on which topic, but this isn't one of those cases. Indeed, a better way to look at the idea of primary sources, is by looking at the term's inverse: secondary source. Effectively everything about secondary sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_sources) applies to the FAQ. In particular, the line, " A secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed," seems relevant. The fact of the matter is, the definition of primary source is pretty concrete, even if the definition of its constituent words might not be.

[olentu]

I don't think you can separate the terms out like that. "Primary source" is a particular term with a particular meaning, distinct from the individual meanings of "primary" and "source". You make a good point that it can be difficult to judge which books qualify as primary sources on which topic, but this isn't one of those cases. Indeed, a better way to look at the idea of primary sources, is by looking at the term's inverse: secondary source. Effectively everything about secondary sources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_sources) applies to the FAQ. In particular, the line, " A secondary source is a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere. A secondary source contrasts with a primary source, which is an original source of the information being discussed," seems relevant. The fact of the matter is, the definition of primary source is pretty concrete, even if the definition of its constituent words might not be.

Right, so you are saying that all those various uses of the English language I presented are absolutely incorrect, or are you once again claiming that you and only you know which meaning the author chose.

[eggynack]

Right, so you are saying that all those various uses of the English language I presented are absolutely incorrect, or are you once again claiming that you and only you know which meaning the author chose.
Well, there's some stuff that we do, in fact, know. We know that the term "primary source" is being used relative to the term "secondary source", and those terms have particular meanings, especially with reference to each other. We also know that the term "primary source" has a specific meaning, separate from the meanings of the constituent terms. I can conclude that the meaning meant was that one, due to the fact that the term "secondary source" was used. If you want to form an argument of definition, it has to be based on the definition of "primary source" rather than the definition of "primary" and "source" as discreet terms. My claims about the definition of "primary source" as it applies to the rules are up for debate, but separating the terms, as you have done, is misleading.

[olentu]

Well, there's some stuff that we do, in fact, know. We know that the term "primary source" is being used relative to the term "secondary source", and those terms have particular meanings, especially with reference to each other. We also know that the term "primary source" has a specific meaning, separate from the meanings of the constituent terms. I can conclude that the meaning meant was that one, due to the fact that the term "secondary source" was used. If you want to form an argument of definition, it has to be based on the definition of "primary source" rather than the definition of "primary" and "source" as discreet terms. My claims about the definition of "primary source" as it applies to the rules are up for debate, but separating the terms, as you have done, is misleading.

So I ask again, are saying that all those various uses of the English language I presented are absolutely incorrect, or are you once again claiming that you and only you know which meaning the author chose.

If you would like I can present some definitions of secondary such as "of the second rank" and do something similar to what I did before, but all that is pointless so long as you continue to claim insight into the author's intent.

[eggynack]

So I ask again, are saying that all those various uses of the English language I presented are absolutely incorrect, or are you once again claiming that you and only you know which meaning the author chose.

If you would like I can present some definitions of secondary such as "of the second rank" and do something similar to what I did before, but all that is pointless so long as you continue to claim insight into the author's intent.
I think that they are mostly inaccurate. Or, perhaps, they are merely definitions of the wrong thing. Definitions rely on context, so divorcing a word from the meaning of the term as a whole doesn't make sense.

[olentu]

I think that they are mostly inaccurate. Or, perhaps, they are merely definitions of the wrong thing. Definitions rely on context, so divorcing a word from the meaning of the term as a whole doesn't make sense.

So, is that claiming that you and only you know the author's intent. It certainly looks like it to me.

[eggynack]

So, is that claiming that you and only you know the author's intent. It certainly looks like it to me.
Well, if you'd make an argument that used the term "primary source" as a premise, instead of just, "primary" in a vacuum, that'd be fair game. If you think that the author's intent was to use those words absent each other, I would have to disagree with that. If looking at words in their full context means claiming sole authority on the author's intent, I guess that's what I'm doing, but I don't know why the one would mean the other. I don't think that you can just define every term in a sentence separately, because words depend on each other. The fact that the author never uses the term "primary" absent the word "source" indicates that the author intended the complete term. I can't see anything in the text that would indicate that I should evaluate it in a different way.

[olentu]

Well, if you'd make an argument that used the term "primary source" as a premise, instead of just, "primary" in a vacuum, that'd be fair game. If you think that the author's intent was to use those words absent each other, I would have to disagree with that. If looking at words in their full context means claiming sole authority on the author's intent, I guess that's what I'm doing, but I don't know why the one would mean the other. I don't think that you can just define every term in a sentence separately, because words depend on each other. The fact that the author never uses the term "primary" absent the word "source" indicates that the author intended the complete term. I can't see anything in the text that would indicate that I should evaluate it in a different way.

Look, until you actually claim that the uses I presented can not possibly be right I see no reason to arbitrarily concede to your arbitrary demands.

And really more claims to know what the author was thinking at the time of writing the rule. I mean seriously you flat out said the author intended the complete term and yet will not admit to making an argument about knowing the author's intent.

[eggynack]

Look, until you actually claim that the uses I presented can not possibly be right I see no reason to arbitrarily concede to your arbitrary demands.

And really more claims to know what the author was thinking at the time of writing the rule. I mean seriously you flat out said the author intended the complete term and yet will not admit to making an argument about knowing the author's intent.
I'm saying that it was the author's intent to use the complete term. Past that, there's probably some room for debate.

[Aegis013]

So, is that claiming that you and only you know the author's intent. It certainly looks like it to me.

Really grasping at straws there.

[olentu]

I'm saying that it was the author's intent to use the complete term. Past that, there's probably some room for debate.

So tell me, does that not mean that your argument relies on knowing the author's intent, as if you can not claim to know that the author intended the two words to be inexorably linked you can not dismiss the uses I presented.

[eggynack]

So tell me, does that not mean that your argument relies on knowing the author's intent, as if you can not claim to know that the author intended the two words to be inexorably linked you can not dismiss the uses I presented.
Well, it depends less on knowing the author's intent, and more on knowing the meanings of stuff. Primary source just means a different thing from the two words separately. I can't think of a single time that I've seen them mean anything apart from the term as a whole, and definitely not when it was repeated several times, and absolutely not when it was used along with the term "secondary source". It just seems pretty clear cut to me.

[olentu]

Well, it depends less on knowing the author's intent, and more on knowing the meanings of stuff. Primary source just means a different thing from the two words separately. I can't think of a single time that I've seen them mean anything apart from the term as a whole, and definitely not when it was repeated several times, and absolutely not when it was used along with the term "secondary source". It just seems pretty clear cut to me.

Wait, is that the anecdotal evidence argument. The argument that since you have not seen it personally it never happens.

I am going to say I don't really understand and ask you to rephrase since I really hope that I am just misunderstanding a turn of phrase.

[eggynack]

Wait, is that the anecdotal evidence argument. The argument that since you have not seen it personally it never happens.

I am going to say I don't really understand and ask you to rephrase since I really hope that I am just misunderstanding a turn of phrase.
It's not so much anecdotal evidence as just the way words work. Primary source has an actual meaning. There's a minuscule chance that the author could just be using the word, "primary" and "source" separately. The odds of that go down to zero when the phrase is used repeatedly. It was probably a mistake to phrase it within my own experiences, but I don't know what you're basing your claims on. What would lead you to believe that the words should be taken separately? I just don't see anything that would indicate that.

[olentu]

It's not so much anecdotal evidence as just the way words work. Primary source has an actual meaning. There's a minuscule chance that the author could just be using the word, "primary" and "source" separately. The odds of that go down to zero when the phrase is used repeatedly. It was probably a mistake to phrase it within my own experiences, but I don't know what you're basing your claims on. What would lead you to believe that the words should be taken separately? I just don't see anything that would indicate that.

I see nothing that mandates the words must be taken separately, but I see nothing that mandates the opposite either. There are a multitude of uses that could be correct, however you seem to claim that you know the one true definition the author is using. I disagree.

[eggynack]

I see nothing that mandates the words must be taken separately, but I see nothing that mandates the opposite either. There are a multitude of uses that could be correct, however you seem to claim that you know the one true definition the author is using. I disagree.
Well, the thing that mandates that they be taken separately is that that's how language works. Primary might have many meanings on its own, but when it's sitting next to the word "source", those meanings are cut down a lot. If you could give any sort of evidence that the terms, when sitting together, can be taken apart from the way I've suggested, I'd welcome it. I might have never come across anything of the sort, but I guess you could have. Moreover, the term secondary source narrows the meaning even more. Another narrowing factor is that that section of the book is talking about documents, which further shows that my definition is correct. What I'm saying is, there's a hell of a lot of evidence supporting my view, and approximately no evidence supporting yours.

[JaronK]

No, other later printed books would absolutely do something, because those books are primary sources. The PHB is only the primary source for feats in the general sense. If a later book came out that tried to change those general feat rules, the PHB would win out, due to the primary source rule. Complete Mage is the primary source for spells and prestige classes in Complete Mage, because that's where they come from originally. The FAQ is not the primary source for anything it says, so it gets overwritten any time there is a contradiction.

There's no rule that says Complete Mage is the primary source for spells and prestige classes in Complete Mage. In fact, that's not true at all, because the Spell Compendium reprinted a bunch of spells... if those spells came from "primary sources" then Spell Compendium couldn't modify them. Consider Mantle of the Icy Soul... first printed in Frostburn, later altered in Spell Compendium. Is Frostburn the primary source for spells printed in Frostburn? If so, the reprint in Spell Compendium that changes the spell dramatically is trumped and does nothing. Do you believe that to be the case?

Where did you get the idea that Complete Mage was the primary source for anything at all? Can you point to a rule that says this?

JaronK

[eggynack]

There's no rule that says Complete Mage is the primary source for spells and prestige classes in Complete Mage. In fact, that's not true at all, because the Spell Compendium reprinted a bunch of spells... if those spells came from "primary sources" then Spell Compendium couldn't modify them. Consider Mantle of the Icy Soul... first printed in Frostburn, later altered in Spell Compendium. Is Frostburn the primary source for spells printed in Frostburn? If so, the reprint in Spell Compendium that changes the spell dramatically is trumped and does nothing. Do you believe that to be the case?

Where did you get the idea that Complete Mage was the primary source for anything at all? Can you point to a rule that says this?

JaronK
I apologize if I wasn't clear. What I meant was that Complete Mage is the primary source for spells that appear there for the first time. For situations in which it's a reprinting of a spell, the original source is the primary source. The same holds true for other things. On the spell compendium, there's an entire section on page four that handles this situation explicitly. If you can find something in the FAQ that handles the situation it is in, like what the rules compendium has, there will be more grounding for your claims.

Edit: Ah, you were referring to spells that are reprinted in SpC from CM. Well, just the section on page four, then.

[Curmudgeon]

If it was Skip Williams and Monte Cooke manning the FAQ we'd have something awesome, but it looks more like its some random employee, which is a shame.
You might want to re-evaluate your opinions. The main FAQ author was Skip Williams, with Andy Collins coming in later — and quietly dropping some questions (where Skip had goofed on the answers) from later FAQ releases.

I think everyone who wants to claim the FAQ isn't rules or isn't official should make sure to state the full name of the area the FAQ is found in when they make their arguments.

It's called the "Official D&D Game Rule FAQ". See here: https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a
Everyone should also note which specific part is claimed to be official: the frequently-asked questions. Chosen from thousands of submissions, these are hand-picked to illustrate particular rules issues. The answers to those questions, on the other hand, don't have any official claim to authority.

After all, we do want to get these details correct, right? :smallbiggrin:

[olentu]

Well, the thing that mandates that they be taken separately is that that's how language works. Primary might have many meanings on its own, but when it's sitting next to the word "source", those meanings are cut down a lot. If you could give any sort of evidence that the terms, when sitting together, can be taken apart from the way I've suggested, I'd welcome it. I might have never come across anything of the sort, but I guess you could have. Moreover, the term secondary source narrows the meaning even more. Another narrowing factor is that that section of the book is talking about documents, which further shows that my definition is correct. What I'm saying is, there's a hell of a lot of evidence supporting my view, and approximately no evidence supporting yours.

Wait, you have a rule of English that mandates that the two terms must absolutely be used together to mean that one specific thing. If you had that from the beginning why did you not just post it. Or am I just getting my hopes up again and your evidence does not actually prove that all those various uses of the English language I presented earlier must be wrong, leaving us exactly where we have been this whole discussion.


You might want to re-evaluate your opinions. The main FAQ author was Skip Williams, with Andy Collins coming in later — and quietly dropping some questions (where Skip had goofed on the answers) from later FAQ releases.

Everyone should also note which specific part is claimed to be official: the frequently-asked questions. Chosen from thousands of submissions, these are hand-picked to illustrate particular rules issues. The answers to those questions, on the other hand, don't have any official claim to authority.

After all, we do want to get these details correct, right? :smallbiggrin:

I have found the following definitions of FAQ. A document, in question and answer format, that introduces newcomers to a topic, listed questions and answers, all supposed to be commonly asked, a list of frequently asked questions and their answers about a given subject, a list of questions and answers relating to a particular subject, a document (as on a Web site) that provides answers to a list of typical questions, a question included in such a document.

It would seem that depending on the definition of FAQ that is being used the answers may be indicated with the acronym along with the questions.

[eggynack]

Wait, you have a rule of English that mandates that the two terms must absolutely be used together to mean that one specific thing. If you had that from the beginning why did you not just post it. Or am I just getting my hopes up again and your evidence does not actually prove that all those various uses of the English language I presented earlier must be wrong, leaving us exactly where we have been this whole discussion.
I can't really see what else the terms would mean, in that context. I mean, the "primary" part and the "source" part are clearly inextricably linked. That much is obvious. On its own, that might not be enough, but when "primary sources" are being contrasted with "secondary sources" things gain a clarity. It's really a lot of little things that add up to the terms being connected.

[olentu]

I can't really see what else the terms would mean, in that context. I mean, the "primary" part and the "source" part are clearly inextricably linked. That much is obvious. On its own, that might not be enough, but when "primary sources" are being contrasted with "secondary sources" things gain a clarity. It's really a lot of little things that add up to the terms being connected.

And I claim that I can see what else the terms might mean in the context. But that is nothing new considering we have been saying it the whole time. Well now, shall we repeat our argument about viable definition and clearly knowing intent and what not another time. It probably won't go anywhere but maybe one of us will think of something.

[eggynack]

And I claim that I can see what else the terms might mean in the context. But that is nothing new considering we have been saying it the whole time. Well now, shall we repeat our argument about viable definition and clearly knowing intent and what not another time. It probably won't go anywhere but maybe one of us will think of something.
Eh, it's probably not going anywhere. I've made approximately all the arguments I can about this particular aspect of the topic. Some decent points have been made about the inadequacies of the FAQ as rules in the first place, so that could be a logical place to go. On the other hand, there's always the other argument related to primary versus secondary sources. Instead of looking at all of the other books as primary sources, with the FAQ as the exception, we would be looking at the FAQ's intrinsic nature as a secondary source. In particular, is there any definition under which the FAQ isn't a secondary source? If there isn't, it makes much less of a difference how we specifically define a primary source. That could be an interesting line of inquiry.

[JaronK]

Everyone should also note which specific part is claimed to be official: the frequently-asked questions. Chosen from thousands of submissions, these are hand-picked to illustrate particular rules issues. The answers to those questions, on the other hand, don't have any official claim to authority.

After all, we do want to get these details correct, right? :smallbiggrin:

The questions aren't what the designers wrote. The answers are. You know that. And the entire document is considered an official game rules FAQ... which is why that's the title that covers all FAQs. There is no rule that says "only the questions count as official, not the answers." That wouldn't make sense anyway. It's not the questions that are official and relevant, it's the answers. Unless you'd care to put in some sourcing for your "the questions are official and the answers aren't" argument I suggest you drop it as it's very silly. There is literally no document in D&D that's part official and part unofficial unless the unofficial part is explicitly listed as a house rule or suggestion only. That is not the case here.


I apologize if I wasn't clear. What I meant was that Complete Mage is the primary source for spells that appear there for the first time. For situations in which it's a reprinting of a spell, the original source is the primary source. The same holds true for other things. On the spell compendium, there's an entire section on page four that handles this situation explicitly. If you can find something in the FAQ that handles the situation it is in, like what the rules compendium has, there will be more grounding for your claims.

Edit: Ah, you were referring to spells that are reprinted in SpC from CM. Well, just the section on page four, then.

And I'm saying that's clearly false. Complete Mage is not the primary source for spells that appear there for the first time... nor is any other book (other than the PHB) for any other spells. That's why the Spell Compendium can modify and sometimes completely change those spells. If primary source rules applied, nothing the SpC could say would change this fact unless it was listed as a new primary source (which it's not, though IIRC the Rules Compendium is).

Primary source rules do not apply nearly as much as some people here want to claim.

JaronK

[olentu]

Eh, it's probably not going anywhere. I've made approximately all the arguments I can about this particular aspect of the topic. Some decent points have been made about the inadequacies of the FAQ as rules in the first place, so that could be a logical place to go. On the other hand, there's always the other argument related to primary versus secondary sources. Instead of looking at all of the other books as primary sources, with the FAQ as the exception, we would be looking at the FAQ's intrinsic nature as a secondary source. In particular, is there any definition under which the FAQ isn't a secondary source? If there isn't, it makes much less of a difference how we specifically define a primary source. That could be an interesting line of inquiry.

Eh, I really don't see how we can have a discussion on primary versus secondary source if we can not agree what those things actually mean. For example it would seem that the definition proposed by JaronK means that the FAQ would not necessarily be the secondary source, but you do not seem to agree with him. Depending on which of the uses I proposed earlier the FAQ is not necessarily the secondary source, but you don't seem to agree with them. Not to mention that this would probably just kick us back to the whole "lack of a rule rule" thing.

[eggynack]

And I'm saying that's clearly false. Complete Mage is not the primary source for spells that appear there for the first time... nor is any other book (other than the PHB) for any other spells. That's why the Spell Compendium can modify and sometimes completely change those spells. If primary source rules applied, nothing the SpC could say would change this fact unless it was listed as a new primary source (which it's not, though IIRC the Rules Compendium is).

Primary source rules do not apply nearly as much as some people here want to claim.

JaronK
I don't see how reprinted spells make Complete Mage any less of a primary source for the rules printed there. You are perfectly allowed, according to the SpC itself, to use the original spells. Moreover, the section of the book I cited discusses the fact that it's changing some of the rules. The FAQ has no such aspect. Its only apparent goal is as a commentary on the rules, and any difference with the actual rules should be treated as an error on that basis.

[Curmudgeon]

I don't see how reprinted spells make Complete Mage any less of a primary source for the rules printed there.
As far as books go, there are only three primary sources, all of which say "CORE RULEBOOK" on the cover. Nothing else is a primary source, according to the Primary Source Errata Rule. Consequently, Complete Mage simply isn't a primary source book.

[ericgrau]

What would you consider to be clear evidence to the contrary?
Indications that a FAQ answer is an oversight, like referring to one rule but without realizing the existence of another. Low amount of debate on a RAW issue because the RAW is clear and not confusing. Etc. Nothing is certain. But if the rule is quite ambiguous and there's a FAQ answer, I'd go with the FAQ answer. Again it's not certain, but it's usually more likely to be true than anything else including Joe Shmo claiming that "RAW says X" (when it's ambiguous and he just thinks RAW says X) and "omg that's FAQ, FAQ isn't RAW".

Given that a few of the FAQ answers were later corrected, that leaves only a few mistakes left IMO. Though it also makes it apparent that mistakes exist.

[mattie_p]

Is it possible to come to a consensus of the hierarchy of precedence amongst the various rule sources? ( I suspect not, but I have to ask)

For example Errata > Core > Other WoTC sources > FAQ , or

Errata > FAQ > Core > Other WoTC sources, or

FAQ > Errata > Core > Other WoRC sources

where should the Ask Wizards column (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/askwiz) come in?

[137beth]

Is it possible to come to a consensus of the hierarchy of precedence amongst the various rule sources? ( I suspect not, but I have to ask)

For example Errata > Core > Other WoTC sources > FAQ , or

Errata > FAQ > Core > Other WoTC sources, or

FAQ > Errata > Core > Other WoRC sources

where should the Ask Wizards column (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/askwiz) come in?
Where does the rules compendium fit in this hierarchy?

[Curmudgeon]

Where does the rules compendium fit in this hierarchy?
It doesn't. Rules Compendium's authority is entirely self-proclaimed. There is no Wizards of the Coast statement outside that book which gives it the power to overrule anything else. Also, even some of its changes have been countermanded.
When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. The new releases of all the 3.5 books (the ones that start with "Premium" if you're looking at Amazon) weren't preexisting at the time of RC's publication. For instance, the change to wand activation (same as casting time in RC) has been reverted to a minimum of a standard action in the Premium DMG.

[huttj509]

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. Note: The most recent updates are shaded like this.

So, following those examples, wouldn't the primary source for a mechanic just be the specific entry, in the specific book where the mechanic is introduced? ToB would be the primary source for Swordsages, for example, while the Spell Compendium would be the primary source for new spells introduced there.

"Text trumps table" would just be a specific example of the primary source rule (as established in the example above). As would "specific trumps general."

[JaronK]

The Hierarchy is simple: Rules Compendium > PHB, MM1, and DMG > Everything else. However, this ONLY applies in cases where equally specific entries are irreconcilably contradictory (such as RC and MM saying that a spell like ability for a faster than standard action spell takes the same time as the spell but for slower spells takes a standard action, while the PHB says otherwise).

For all other cases, the Hierarchy is this:

1: First, attempt to interpret the rules such that there is no contradiction. If this is possible, this is the correct interpretation.

2: Second, use the more specific ruling if available.

That's it. Source is actually irrelevant unless we're talking about books specifically called out as having the ability to trump (namely, RC, PHB, MM1, and DMG). Sometimes there actually is no answer... Is Unearthed Arcana the correct source for taint, or Heroes of Horror? No idea. Take your best guess. For others, we rely on specifics and avoiding contradictions... is Complete Warrior the correct source for Volley Fire rules, or Heroes of Battle? The answer is Heroes of Battle, because the latter uses the same rules as Complete Warrior but adds in new penalties and new specific rules.

JaronK

[eggynack]

Y'know, I've been thinking about that list of definitions some more, and I don't think that any of them are nearly far enough away from my views that they're impossible to reconcile. It might be worthwhile to go through them in a step by step way, and maybe do some evaluation.



First or highest in rank or importance; chief; principal.
This one might make little sense on its own, but I think there's a logic there when considering the context, especially with respect to specific rulse, and doubly so when considering the FAQ. Other sources may lie in the ether where this terminology is concerned, but the FAQ will always be of lower rank and importance. Even if you end up looking at the FAQ, it's always something you end up doing, and it always comes second. If you have a question about a spell in one of the books, then you're only checking the FAQ after reading the rules in the book originally, and the FAQ is obviously less important for this purpose than the book itself. It's tricky to give things primary ranks where particular things are concerned, but as I mentioned, it's much easier to give the FAQ a secondary rank where everything is concerned. As commentary, it will always rank lower, and be of less importance.



Basic, fundamental.
Once again, we run into a situation where it's hard to find specific definitions outside of this case. As in the previous example, no matter what book you're talking about, it will always be more basic and fundamental about a given issue than the FAQ is. I'm not going to go into much more detail, because the last case basically covers it.



First in order of time or development.

First in order in any series, sequence.

These are basically the same, and are rather cut and dry. The FAQ always comes second in order of time and development, by its very nature, and always comes second in any series or sequence you care to name.

I should probably also post some more links to definitions of "primary source", so that my actual views are represented. Here (http://www.princeton.edu/~refdesk/primary2.html) is one from Princeton, and here (http://www.yale.edu/collections_collaborative/primarysources/primarysources.html) is a Yale one. I could post some more, but you could always just Google the term, and get the same thing.

[olentu]

Snip

Perhaps the thing you are missing is that as a part of my argument I admit that your definition could be correct even though it could also be wrong since there are things different from your definition that could also be correct. The fact that the two of us can take the same definitions of the same words and come up with completely divergent interpretations is, I would say, in support of my position. The developer could have agreed with you, with me, or perhaps with some third position not strictly in line with either.

[eggynack]

Perhaps the thing you are missing is that as a part of my argument I admit that your definition could be correct even though it could also be wrong as there are things different from your definition that could also be correct. The fact that the two of us can take the same definitions of the same words and come up with completely divergent interpretations is, I would say, in support of my position. The developer could have agreed with you, with me, or perhaps with some third position not strictly in line with either.
What I think I'm missing from your argument is, under what definition is the FAQ a primary source? We could faff about all day about where Frostburn is the primary source or isn't, but if the FAQ is never the primary source under any definition, it all seems rather pointless. I just don't think that the FAQ can ever be anything but secondary. It's the second thing you look at, or the second most important source, or the second thing written. It's always secondary to whatever it's answering questions about, even under the most arbitrary definitions. The fact that it's also obviously a secondary source under the most logical definition, is also a point in my favor.

[olentu]

What I think I'm missing from your argument is, under what definition is the FAQ a primary source? We could faff about all day about where Frostburn is the primary source or isn't, but if the FAQ is never the primary source under any definition, it all seems rather pointless. I just don't think that the FAQ can ever be anything but secondary. It's the second thing you look at, or the second most important source, or the second thing written. It's always secondary to whatever it's answering questions about, even under the most arbitrary definitions. The fact that it's also obviously a secondary source under the most logical definition, is also a point in my favor.

Well first off, by the definition put forth by JaronK it is possible that there are only three books that are a primary source meaning the FAQ is on equal footing with all other books as not being a primary source. Sure that does not mean the FAQ is a primary source, but it also means that that fact is mostly irrelevant.

Likewise, as I said in my explanation, since we don't know the intent of the developers it is quite possible that they had a ranking system that went like Core Rulebooks > some books > FAQ > other books. If that was the WotC ranking then the highest in rank definition could put the FAQ as a primary source. Now this is only one of many possible rankings that WotC could have been using.

Similarly when looking at the basic, fundamental use it is possible that WotC had the idea that one of the most fundamental rules of any product is that when the company rules on something in an official capacity that overrides anything not specifically excepted. Given that they went through the trouble of producing the FAQ it would not be an unreasonable thing for them to think.

When we consider the first in order of development, that would put the FAQ second, but it would also put any reprints second. Nothing in the rules could ever be reprinted in a modified form without having an explicit statement at the book overrides the primary source rule. Merely noting that some material is reprinted is not enough to change a primary source because the very admission that said material is reprinted is admission that the previous source of the material was first making that previous source the primary source. Since you seem to hold that material can be reprinted and changed you clearly do not agree with this.

It is possible I could come up with more, but I think you get the idea.

[ericgrau]

It looks like a repeated mistake I'm seeing is trying to determine where the FAQ stands on rules authority priority. It doesn't: it is neither at the bottom nor at the top. It's quite specifically the official source for questions about rules. Ideally if the FAQ were perfect it would merely repeat what RAW says in more understandable language, not replace RAW nor be made obsolete by RAW.

Officially, it should be the first place to go when we can't figure out a rule. Even then it's not 100% certain, but it's often the best we can do.

[olentu]

It looks like a repeated mistake I'm seeing is trying to determine where the FAQ stands on rules authority priority. It doesn't: it is neither at the bottom nor at the top. It's quite specifically the official source for questions about rules. Ideally if the FAQ were perfect it would merely repeat what RAW says in more understandable language, not replace RAW nor be made obsolete by RAW.

Officially, it should be the first place to go when we can't figure out a rule. Even then it's not 100% certain, but it's often the best we can do.

Hmm, what exactly do you mean. It looks kind of like this is just the "The answers in the FAQ are not in any way official, only the questions are. Thus the FAQ can be ignored." argument that someone proposed earlier but the additional stuff makes me unsure just what position you are trying to express.

[huttj509]

Hmm, what exactly do you mean. It looks kind of like this is just the "The answers in the FAQ are not in any way official, only the questions are. Thus the FAQ can be ignored." argument that someone proposed earlier but the additional stuff makes me unsure just what position you are trying to express.

I think he means that it's a secondary source in the normal research meaning of the term. Primary sources would be the rules themselves, while secondary sources would be commentary or references to the rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

Note that this is not how the errata definition uses the terms when describing what takes precedence, which is part of the confusion (and the whole "difference between a source that is primary and a 'primary source'" discussion).

Thus, the FAQ has similar status to an official version of a "how does ____ work" thread here. People try to juggle the pertinent rules to hash out a consistent answer, but the individuals involved can make mistakes, miss rule conflicts, and make judgment calls that won't work at your table.

[olentu]

I think he means that it's a secondary source in the normal research meaning of the term. Primary sources would be the rules themselves, while secondary sources would be commentary or references to the rules.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_source

Note that this is not how the errata definition uses the terms when describing what takes precedence, which is part of the confusion (and the whole "difference between a source that is primary and a 'primary source'" discussion).

Thus, the FAQ has similar status to an official version of a "how does ____ work" thread here. People try to juggle the pertinent rules to hash out a consistent answer, but the individuals involved can make mistakes, miss rule conflicts, and make judgment calls that won't work at your table.

So, am I to assume that like a how does X work thread here, the people discussing the matter are just some random individuals unaffiliated with WotC or what.

[eggynack]

So, am I to assume that like a how does X work thread here, the people discussing the matter are just some random individuals unaffiliated with WotC or what.
You mean in the FAQ? I'm pretty sure those folks absolutely are affiliated with WotC. It's just irrelevant for the definition of secondary sources, at least if you mean it in the classical scholarly sense. The FAQ is information commenting on information, which is the intrinsic definition of a secondary source. I honestly don't know where the Spell Compendium fits into all that, though the fact that it specifically discusses the relationship it has with the rules of the game, while the FAQ does not, is highly relevant. I actually think that the direct reprinting aspect of the SpC might qualify as a tertiary source, which is a compendium of primary and secondary sources. If you just consider the altered spells as entirely new information, which the SpC is presenting for the first time, things might fall into place better. I've seen that interpretation before, where the altered spells and the old spells are just fundamentally different, and both have the capacity to exist. It's certainly a weird corner of the rules.

[olentu]

You mean in the FAQ? I'm pretty sure those folks absolutely are affiliated with WotC. It's just irrelevant for the definition of secondary sources, at least if you mean it in the classical scholarly sense. The FAQ is information commenting on information, which is the intrinsic definition of a secondary source. I honestly don't know where the Spell Compendium fits into all that, though the fact that it specifically discusses the relationship it has with the rules of the game, while the FAQ does not, is highly relevant. I actually think that the direct reprinting aspect of the SpC might qualify as a tertiary source, which is a compendium of primary and secondary sources. If you just consider the altered spells as entirely new information, which the SpC is presenting for the first time, things might fall into place better. I've seen that interpretation before, where the altered spells and the old spells are just fundamentally different, and both have the capacity to exist. It's certainly a weird corner of the rules.

Since the discussion started with "It looks like a repeated mistake I'm seeing is trying to determine where the FAQ stands on rules authority priority." it would seem that this particular sub-topic is unrelated to where the FAQ stands with regards to rules authority priority. Since the primary source rule is only concerned with rules authority priority I would have to say it is not related at all.

[eggynack]

Since the discussion started with "It looks like a repeated mistake I'm seeing is trying to determine where the FAQ stands on rules authority priority." it would seem that this particular sub-topic is unrelated to where the FAQ stands with regards to rules authority priority. Since the primary source rule is only concerned with rules authority priority I would have to say it is not related at all.
I suppose. It all became muddled rather rapidly. I mean, hutt's interpretation of eric's comment was that it was related to secondary sources, in the scholarly sense, so I assumed that your comment was also related to that. As I said, muddled. In any case, I don't even think that the FAQ was necessarily supposed to have any rule changing authority. By my understanding, it was just supposed to give answers about the rules that already exist. In this sense, it would have the same amount of rules changing authority as our Q&A thread. That's the stance I have, anyways. Problems only really arise when the FAQ is just wrong about the rules that exist. Because of that, it loses a lot of credibility when it tries to resolve issues of RAI. If it can't even get the regular rules right, why would I turn to the FAQ when it attempts to clarify ambiguities?

[olentu]

I suppose. It all became muddled rather rapidly. I mean, hutt's interpretation of eric's comment was that it was related to secondary sources, in the scholarly sense, so I assumed that your comment was also related to that. As I said, muddled. In any case, I don't even think that the FAQ was necessarily supposed to have any rule changing authority. By my understanding, it was just supposed to give answers about the rules that already exist. In this sense, it would have the same amount of rules changing authority as our Q&A thread. That's the stance I have, anyways. Problems only really arise when the FAQ is just wrong about the rules that exist. Because of that, it loses a lot of credibility when it tries to resolve issues of RAI. If it can't even get the regular rules right, why would I turn to the FAQ when it attempts to clarify ambiguities?

Eh, I can't really say for sure whether any Wizards of the Coast game product that doesn't explicitly say it has rules changing authority, has rules changing authority. Now this would not matter if the FAQ is not actually official as seemed to have been what the idea was, but there's a few hurdles for that to get over.

I suppose that if the FAQ contains rules but looses credibility it could turn out like dragon, complete psionic, etc. Its rules are technically rules but people generally ignore the parts they don't like. Then again, people probably toss out rules from all kinds of official content when they don't like it, so that is nothing out of the ordinary.

[eggynack]

Eh, I can't really say for sure whether any Wizards of the Coast game product that doesn't explicitly say it has rules changing authority, has rules changing authority. Now this would not matter if the FAQ is not actually official as seemed to have been what the idea was, but there's a few hurdles for that to get over.

I suppose that if the FAQ contains rules but looses credibility it could turn out like dragon, complete psionic, etc. Its rules are technically rules but people generally ignore the parts they don't like. Then again, people probably toss out rules from all kinds of official content when they don't like it, so that is nothing out of the ordinary.
I'm pretty sure that the FAQ is official. It has WotC guys, and a big official stamp. I just don't know if that means anything in this context. I guess it could be called, "Rulings as written," but it's all rather disconnected from meaning. In my view, the only time the FAQ could claim authority is when the situation is absolutely ambiguous, but as you mentioned, it doesn't have much credibility where that's concerned.

[Pickford]

OK, so here's a question, then. Which rule is more important, the primary vs. secondary source rule or the specific trumps general rule?

EDIT: Might as well throw in: Can we get a specific citation for the "later published replaces earlier published?" That gets tossed around a lot and if I had the source of that it would help.

The validity of any rule is up to the DM. You're seeking absolutes in a situation where there really aren't any. DMs are free to accept, discard, or modify any aspect of the game as they see fit.

[eggynack]

The validity of any rule is up to the DM. You're seeking absolutes in a situation where there really aren't any. DMs are free to accept, discard, or modify any aspect of the game as they see fit.
I don't see how this matters. Like, at all. The potential for rule zeroing doesn't change the nature of the base rule set. In any case, I'm still not entirely sure what specific trumps general has to do with this issue. I think that that rule usually takes precedence, but if the set of information is just entirely irrelevant, due to its nature as a secondary source, or due to its nature as a collection of rulings rather than rules, specific trumps general never even has an opportunity to come into play.

[Pickford]

I don't see how this matters. Like, at all. The potential for rule zeroing doesn't change the nature of the base rule set. In any case, I'm still not entirely sure what specific trumps general has to do with this issue. I think that that rule usually takes precedence, but if the set of information is just entirely irrelevant, due to its nature as a secondary source, or due to its nature as a collection of rulings rather than rules, specific trumps general never even has an opportunity to come into play.

Actually, it does matter. You see with that, there's no discrepancy with contradictory information precisely because the DM can pick and choose.

Presto: FAQ is official and you are free to pretend it's not. :smallbiggrin:

[eggynack]

Actually, it does matter. You see with that, there's no discrepancy with contradictory information precisely because the DM can pick and choose.

Presto: FAQ is official and you are free to pretend it's not. :smallbiggrin:
Just because something would work if your premise were accurate, that doesn't mean your premise is accurate. It kinda feels like the Oberoni fallacy, in that things aren't broken, because they can be fixed. The FAQ can be as "official" as you want it to be, but that doesn't mean it effects RAW. If you want to use the FAQ in your own games, you're perfectly free to do so, but that doesn't actually effect the argument.

[olentu]

I'm pretty sure that the FAQ is official. It has WotC guys, and a big official stamp. I just don't know if that means anything in this context. I guess it could be called, "Rulings as written," but it's all rather disconnected from meaning. In my view, the only time the FAQ could claim authority is when the situation is absolutely ambiguous, but as you mentioned, it doesn't have much credibility where that's concerned.

Oh I expect the FAQ is official, what with all that official stuff you mentioned. But that was the point of my question whether or not the argument that dismissed questions of rules authority priority was trying to argue that the FAQ is not official.

Eh, so long as the FAQ is either rules or not official anything then things like the primary source rule, the order of rules operations, etc. can be applied even if we can not agree how those things would specifically work. On the other hand, if we change it to a statement of how WotC has officially ruled that the game is to be played then, among other things, the previous methods of resolving conflicts with the FAQ cease to work.

As to credibility, my point was that credibility is meaningless with regards to whether or not a thing is a rule. People houserule all sorts of crazy things in their games but those really don't matter much to the question at hand.

[eggynack]

As to credibility, my point was that credibility is meaningless with regards to whether or not a thing is a rule. People houserule all sorts of crazy things in their games but those really don't matter much to the question at hand.
Credibility is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to actual RAW, but in terms of rulings, I think it makes a difference. If the FAQ were reliable, then it's more likely that people would use it to solve rules disputes, because sometimes the rules just don't work. As is, the FAQ isn't even on my list of potential resources if I want to figure out how something works. It just never even comes up. I think that reflects the way most folks operate.

[olentu]

Credibility is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to actual RAW, but in terms of rulings, I think it makes a difference. If the FAQ were reliable, then it's more likely that people would use it to solve rules disputes, because sometimes the rules just don't work. As is, the FAQ isn't even on my list of potential resources if I want to figure out how something works. It just never even comes up. I think that reflects the way most folks operate.

Oh, it will make a difference for both. But that difference is only what you said, whether or not people chose to use it in their home games and little else. Sure, there are things that I ignore when I am the DM, but unless you want to start having a discussion about what people choose to do in their individual groups that really does not seem to matter at all.

[eggynack]

Oh, it will make a difference for both. But that difference is only what you said, whether or not people chose to use it in their home games and little else. Sure, there are things that I ignore when I am the DM, but unless you want to start having a discussion about what people choose to do in their individual groups that really does not seem to matter at all.
Fair enough. Still, I get the feeling that if the FAQ said nothing but true stuff, and then told us how ride by attack works, there's a chance we'd take that as RAW, or at least as close as you can get. There's just these huge gaps in the game, and it'd be nice to have a resource that gave us a way around them. The FAQ could have been that resource, but it didn't turn out that way. I suppose that's off the current topic of the FAQ's ability to be RAW, though perhaps it's on the thread's topic of general FAQ stuff.

[olentu]

Fair enough. Still, I get the feeling that if the FAQ said nothing but true stuff, and then told us how ride by attack works, there's a chance we'd take that as RAW, or at least as close as you can get. There's just these huge gaps in the game, and it'd be nice to have a resource that gave us a way around them. The FAQ could have been that resource, but it didn't turn out that way. I suppose that's off the current topic of the FAQ's ability to be RAW, though perhaps it's on the thread's topic of general FAQ stuff.

Even if not directly related to the direction of the previous discussion I would say it is not really off topic. One of the things that this thread was to be about is the merits and flaws of the FAQ. Discussing how well the FAQ was received regardless of the technicalities of its rules status seems well within the bounds of that. And yeah, it would have been much nicer if the FAQ hadn't ended up so disliked. If nothing else it would probably have circumvented a great deal of argument.