FAQ "Officialness"

[torrasque666]

Long story short, are the FAQs provided by Wizards official rulings on situations? Like how the Paizo ones, while not "official" are still legal rule clarifications?


I don't really know how to explain this well. Basically me and another player are having an argument over whether or not the FAQ on templates and polymorphing magic(specifically, that the FAQ says you can't apply them) is considered an official rule or not.

[eggynack]

They sort of are "official rulings," but that doesn't really mean anything. If the actual books say that the game works in a particular way, then that's the way the game works, and the FAQ lacks the authority to override that. Rulings aren't the same as rules, and the FAQ's past issues with saying things that are directly opposed to RAW robs it of some degree of its credibility. That's how I see it, anyway, which is an important caveat to put down, as crazy arguments exist in this thread's future, likely lacking in a clear resolution. Such is the nature of FAQ threads.

[torrasque666]

Its more specifically on whether or not you can apply them to Shapechange, given its "non-unique" line. He says you can. By that logic, I could arrange for a shapechange into a Paragon Creature. The FAQ says you can't because Alter Self says they are not valid, regardless of type changes.

[georgie_leech]

Short answer is ask your DM. Their answer will be a heck of a lot more useful than our endless dithering (which usually averages out to somewhere around "eh, not really).

[heavyfuel]

Short answer is ask your DM. Their answer will be a heck of a lot more useful than our endless dithering (which usually averages out to somewhere around "eh, not really).

Adding to that, if you're the DM, the FAQ can be the easy way to rule some tough questions. Had a DM once that used the FAQ almost to the letter, only ignoring blatant contradictions to the Rules and the game worked just fine, so, take that as you will.

[jiriku]

Ugh, tell your friend to have some common sense. If shapechange lets you apply one template, then it would have to let you apply all of them. At once. Even without that interpretation it's horribly, horribly powerful. Imagine stacking 40+ beneficial templates on top of whatever form.... No. just no. DMG-to-head time.

[Doc_Maynot]

Just my two cents on the matter but...
Shapechange: "This spell functions like polymorph..."
Polymorph: "This spell functions like alter self..."
Alter Self: "You cannot take the form of any creature with a template, even if that template doesn’t change the creature type or subtype."

Neither Polymorph nor Shapechange made a statement against that line.

[torrasque666]

Just my two cents on the matter but...
Shapechange: "This spell functions like polymorph..."
Polymorph: "This spell functions like alter self..."
Alter Self: "You cannot take the form of any creature with a template, even if that template doesn’t change the creature type or subtype."

Neither Polymorph nor Shapechange made a statement against that line.

His logic is "non-unique" trumps Alter Self's limitation.

[TypoNinja]

If you are looking for a second opinion the FAQ can be a decent source. But I wouldn't treat it as anything other than a second opinion.

I personally don't use it at all, either as a DM or a player. As a player I ask my DM about any grey area in the rules anyway, as a DM I already my own ideas on which way I'd rule grey areas.

The FAQ is from an official source, but doesn't qualify as rules text, so its in a rather strange position. Its sort of like asking a game dev how they expect you to play their game. You'll get their vision, but it isn't necessarily how it has to be done.

[Doc_Maynot]

So, by your friend's logic, the "...into another form of living creature. The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin" part of Polymorph should also override that.
Issue with that is that WoTC clarified that Polymorph still restricts templates in 3.0 and that it didn't change in 3.5 with their Rules of the Game articles.

Besides looking at the description for templates which is "A templated creature can represent a freak of nature, the individual creation of a single experimenter, or the first generation of offspring from parents of different species." I think, how is that NOT unique?

[torrasque666]

Apparently the fact that some can be inherited.... granted inherited doesn't necessarily mean that either of the parents would have it, just the capability to have it...

In any case, this is more about Shapechange than polymorph

[Karnith]

His logic is "non-unique" trumps Alter Self's limitation.
I don't even follow that logic. Spells based on Alter Self cannot be used to assume a templated form unless the spell specifically overrides Alter Self's restriction (cf. how Polymorph allows you to assume the forms of creatures of different types, or how Shapechange specifies that you can turn into a creature of any size from Fine to Colossal and allows you to take gaseous or incorporeal forms). Since Shapechange does not contain any text stating that you can take a templated form, you cannot. It's really that simple.

This strikes me as the very obvious RAW and RAI of the situation, and ignoring the restriction makes the spell even more grossly overpowered; if taking the form of, say, a Solar or Chronotyryn was bad before, it's much worse with a Paragon, Pseudonatural, Phrenic, Half- (every kind of dragon) Dragon, Half-Fiend, Half-Celestial, etc. Solar or Chronotyryn.

[torrasque666]

that was my point. the statement "non-unique creature" is not explicitly allowing templates, especially given that if that phrase was enough the line about gaseous creatures would not follow.

[Amphetryon]

The FAQ is an opinion that hypothetically is informed by direct consultation with the folks who wrote the original rules addressed; the issue is that nobody can really show how often this hypothetical situation came up, and folks who pay attention can point to several instances where the folks who wrote the original rules being addressed by the FAQ at the time were obviously never consulted.

TL;DR: It may have more 'voice of authority' to it than what some dude on the interwebz says, but it's certainly got less official weight than the RAW or the DM's final call.

[Pluto!]

"Official" is a stupid concept in a casual noncompetitive game of makebelieve.

Do what makes the game best - in this case, by dodging infinite template stacking idiocy. Shapechange is already broken.

[Esgath]

The FAQ is as official as it gets, it was made by WoTC for D&D. It adds to the understanding of the rules as printed, and should be ignored only where it really contradicts the already existing rules.

[Psyren]

I say it is, just be mindful that there is a minefield of contradictions and incorrect rulings in the FAQ to be aware of.

One of my favorite aspects of Pathfinder is that they legitimized the FAQ from the get-go and aren't afraid to revisit previous rulings if necessary.

[Dimers]

"Official" is a stupid concept in a casual noncompetitive game of makebelieve.

Do what makes the game best - in this case, by dodging infinite template stacking idiocy. Shapechange is already broken.

I'm not a fan of the word "stupid" but the snark in this post is spot-on.

And furthermore, it's not as if the rules designed by WotC are so universally excellent that they should always be followed. Do what's good for your group, not what's in some book written by a human. Humans make mistakes.

[Dornith]

In my group, the de facto rule is: "The DM is the rules. The book is just a list of suggestions." By that standard, it would completely depend on the DM.

[Vaz]

I've never understood why FAQ's are considered unofficial rulings. They're created by the same company who created the game, published on the same website as the company who published the game. And for the same game system.

The nature of the game allows for picking and choosing, but for officialness, the FAQ's are as official as any published book.

[Darrin]

I've never understood why FAQ's are considered unofficial rulings. They're created by the same company who created the game, published on the same website as the company who published the game. And for the same game system.


The FAQ is an "official interpretation" to the rules, and is usually used to clarify an existing rule rather than replace or amend the existing rules.

The mechanism for replacing or amending the existing rules is via the official errata files. If the fix isn't important enough to print in the errata, then most likely it's still just an interpretation or suggestion. If the FAQ were intended to be official rules, then the errata files wouldn't exist, and the FAQ = errata.

Other than that, "whatever works best for your game" is still the best policy that trumps both the FAQ and errata.

[Talya]

The FAQ contradicts itself, in addition to the actual game rules. The people who provided the answers are not game developers, they had nothing to do with writing the books, they have no official power to change the contents or write errata.

The FAQ has no more weight than my own official interpretations in my capacity as outsider who has no connection whatsoever to WotC.

[Psyren]

^ Point of order: Skip, Mearls and other FAQ responders are indeed game developers as noted inside the PHB and various splats. Whether a given DM is justified in disregarding their rulings may be subjective, but them being WotC developers and designers is indisputable fact.

In addition, the weight of FAQ depends entirely on the DM reading it. For many, a statement of intent from a WotC insider does carry more weight than "this poster on the internet said" - even if said poster has a number of other posters agreeing with him/her.

[Talya]

^ Point of order: Skip, Mearls and other FAQ responders are indeed game developers as noted inside the PHB and various splats. Whether a given DM is justified in disregarding their rulings may be subjective, but them being WotC developers and designers is indisputable fact.

In addition, the weight of FAQ depends entirely on the DM reading it. For many, a statement of intent from a WotC insider does carry more weight than "this poster on the internet said" - even if said poster has a number of other posters agreeing with him/her.

It was my impression that CustServ (from which the faq answers were taken) was mostly staffed by employees hired solely to staff custserv, not "Skip, Mearls and others."

[Psyren]

It was my impression that CustServ (from which the faq answers were taken) was mostly staffed by employees hired solely to staff custserv, not "Skip, Mearls and others."

Many of the FAQ answers come from the Sage Advice and Save My Game columns. For instance, the question in the FAQ about Factotums and Cunning Strike is copypasted directly from Sage (answer provided by Mike Mearls.)

I can't speak for all the answers in the FAQ so this may be a case-by-case thing.

[Vogonjeltz]

Long story short, are the FAQs provided by Wizards official rulings on situations?

The FAQ is an official D&D 3.5 document, produced by Wizards of the Coast.

It can't get more official than that. Unless, of course, you're using some new meaning of the word official that I was not previously aware of.


They sort of are "official rulings," but that doesn't really mean anything. If the actual books say that the game works in a particular way, then that's the way the game works, and the FAQ lacks the authority to override that.

To the contrary, if the FAQ says that is the way it works, then it is. That the text was sloppily constructed enough initially that the meaning wasn't immediately clear is of no consequence. The FAQ clarifies exactly what it does mean.

[eggynack]

The FAQ is an official D&D 3.5 document, produced by Wizards of the Coast.

It can't get more official than that. Unless, of course, you're using some new meaning of the word official that I was not previously aware of.

To the contrary, if the FAQ says that is the way it works, then it is. That the text was sloppily constructed enough initially that the meaning wasn't immediately clear is of no consequence. The FAQ clarifies exactly what it does mean.
The FAQ is very much official. That just doesn't mean anything. The FAQ, in no place, clarifies its ability to create or alter rules. It only really has the ability to answer questions about the rules, which makes it not a rules source. Whether it answers questions officially or unofficially is irrelevant. I would put the same premium on answers given to me by the simple Q&A thread, although I'd actually probably trust those answers more.

[TypoNinja]

The FAQ is an official D&D 3.5 document, produced by Wizards of the Coast.

It can't get more official than that. Unless, of course, you're using some new meaning of the word official that I was not previously aware of.



To the contrary, if the FAQ says that is the way it works, then it is. That the text was sloppily constructed enough initially that the meaning wasn't immediately clear is of no consequence. The FAQ clarifies exactly what it does mean.

D&D's rules include rules covering what order to apply rules in and what qualifies are rules text. Things like Primary sources, General vs Specific, ect.

The FAQ is not any of these, so despite being the "Official D&D FAQ" and published by Wizards it strictly speaking has no standing in the hierarchy of rules text.

[torrasque666]

Can I get a source on those rules?

[eggynack]

Can I get a source on those rules?
If you're talking about the primary source rules, you can find them in the PHB errata (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a)

[Vogonjeltz]

The FAQ is very much official. That just doesn't mean anything. The FAQ, in no place, clarifies its ability to create or alter rules. It only really has the ability to answer questions about the rules, which makes it not a rules source. Whether it answers questions officially or unofficially is irrelevant. I would put the same premium on answers given to me by the simple Q&A thread, although I'd actually probably trust those answers more.

It doesn't require such a caveat, it's a FAQ regarding all the rules and speaks clearly about all topics D&D. This is the 3.5 D&D FAQ, not the "3.5 D&D FAQ that totally means nothing because we didn't put in a disclaimer".

Besides, even if there was a disclaimer you could claim it didn't matter for the same reason the primary source guidelines don't cover the rules compendium. You would be wrong in this case however, as the FAQ clearly indicates that it covers a large number of books in the abbreviation guide up front.

[Psyren]

The value of Primary Source is frequently overstated on these boards. The PHB is the primary source on classes in D&D, and according to the newly released PHB reprint there are 11 base classes in 3.5. If we take Primary Source too seriously it means everything from Completes to ToB to MoI is all gone.

FAQ has its problems but I'm willing to bet 90% of reasonable DMs out there will at least give due consideration to something you show them in it.

[Karnith]

I wonder if the FAQ writers ever were told (or decided) what their role was supposed to be - that is, if they thought that their rulings were meant to override other rules sources, or if they thought that their rulings were meant simply to explain the rules as written (regardless of whether they liked the conclusion). Because a lot of answers suggest rulings where the rules are silent (see e.g. the answer regarding starting gold for level 1 monster class characters, p. 3) or suggest ruling against RAW (see e.g. the answer regarding Doppelgangers qualifying for the Mindspy PrC, p. 101), while others just flat-out contradict the rules (see e.g. the entry on Arcane Thesis, pp. 38-39) or claim to answer ambiguities in the rules (see e.g. the White Raven Tactics answer with no explanation, p. 75).

Regardless, after spending a lot of time reading the FAQ, I have developed some sympathy for the FAQ writers. It can't have been fun to have to answer some of the incredibly obvious or weird questions that are in that thing.

[Slipperychicken]

If the writers are clarifying what the rules they wrote are supposed to mean, then that carries roughly the same authority as if the FAQ was published in a book. It's being written by the same person, about the same topic. In that sense, I think FAQ from the writers is identical in nature to asking the author of a novel for clarification for events in his stories.

[Anlashok]

The FAQ is very much official. That just doesn't mean anything. The FAQ, in no place, clarifies its ability to create or alter rules. It only really has the ability to answer questions about the rules, which makes it not a rules source.
Basically, as optimizers we cherrypick what sources we arbitrarily define as the "real" rules sources (see: Rules Compendium is not a rules source argument).

[eggynack]

It doesn't require such a caveat, it's a FAQ regarding all the rules and speaks clearly about all topics D&D. This is the 3.5 D&D FAQ, not the "3.5 D&D FAQ that totally means nothing because we didn't put in a disclaimer".

Besides, even if there was a disclaimer you could claim it didn't matter for the same reason the primary source guidelines don't cover the rules compendium. You would be wrong in this case however, as the FAQ clearly indicates that it covers a large number of books in the abbreviation guide up front.
The FAQ can speak about whatever topics it wants, and cover as many books as it wants. That doesn't give it the authority to alter the rules. The rules compendium gets something of a pass, because it explicitly gives itself to alter the rules within the text. The FAQ isn't errata, and we know this, because the errata is sitting right over there.

Basically, as optimizers we cherrypick what sources we arbitrarily define as the "real" rules sources (see: Rules Compendium is not a rules source argument).
It would be more accurate to say that there are a lot of contradictory things in the text, and it's often ambiguous which rules hold sway, so it's necessary to make such determinations. Really, it's practically a necessity to cherrypick sources to some extent if you want to play by the RAW.

[TypoNinja]

The value of Primary Source is frequently overstated on these boards. The PHB is the primary source on classes in D&D, and according to the newly released PHB reprint there are 11 base classes in 3.5. If we take Primary Source too seriously it means everything from Completes to ToB to MoI is all gone.

FAQ has its problems but I'm willing to bet 90% of reasonable DMs out there will at least give due consideration to something you show them in it.

The PHB is might be the primary source for base classes but the Complete Adventurer would be the primary source for Scouts, and if it says Scout is a base class its still right.

Rules text only completely overrules when it cannont be reconciled, in any other case you find the solution that allows both texts to remain true. The PHB is quite correct, there are 11 base classes, in that book, there however is no rules text forbidding the existence of more base classes so other rules sources are free to add more later.

By your logic fire resistance is irrelevant vs a fireball since fireballs text says nothing about resistances lowering the damage. The rule system obviously doesn't work that way, all rules texts are open to modification by other text. Fireball's damage can be modified by resistance, Grapple rules are modified by a feat, spellcasting is changed by metamagic, metamagic restrictions on spontaneous casters are modified by ACF's. You can't use immediate actions if you are flat footed, except Nerveskitter says you can still cast it, things immune to crits don't take Sneak Attack damage, unless you've got a magic item for that.

The list goes on and on, every rule should be considered to end in "except when indicated otherwise", because sooner or later it probably will happen.

[Anlashok]

It would be more accurate to say that there are a lot of contradictory things in the text, and it's often ambiguous which rules hold sway, so it's necessary to make such determinations. Really, it's practically a necessity to cherrypick sources to some extent if you want to play by the RAW.

Oh absolutely, you have to cherry pick because there's lots of dumb, contradictory things in there. There's also lots of dumb, contradictory things in the books too though and that doesn't make them invalid. I just don't think that makes it any less silly to argue that the official FAQ and rules clarification document published by the developers of the game doesn't actually have any meaning and that it feels as arbitrary as the people asserting the RC doesn't count either.




The list goes on and on, every rule should be considered to end in "except when indicated otherwise", because sooner or later it probably will happen.
I think that was his point though. People do wave the primary source rule around here in pretty silly ways sometimes. Saying stuff like "you can't play a scout" or "wizards can't cast ice assassin because it's not in the PHB" seems more the person trying to poke holes in that argument than a serious attempt to apply it as rules.

Your example though is off, as that's a mix of SvG and other rules, not anything about primary source. Though frankly, I have actually seen people make arguments like that on this forum before (Just a couple days ago someone was arguing that effects that say they stack with Improved Critical don't actually stack because the Imp Critical's entry in the PHB says it doesn't stack with anything and that's the primary source on how imp critical works).

[eggynack]

Oh absolutely, you have to cherry pick because there's lots of dumb, contradictory things in there. There's also lots of dumb, contradictory things in the books too though and that doesn't make them invalid. I just don't think that makes it any less silly to argue that the official FAQ and rules clarification document published by the developers of the game doesn't actually have any meaning and that it feels as arbitrary as the people asserting the RC doesn't count either.

I actually meant in the books. Whether we're talking about something silly in a self contained way, like drowning rules, or something silly in a this-relevant way, like the prestige class prerequisite rules, figuring out how you're going to deal with this sort of thing is always important. As for this specific case, I agree on the rules compendium, as it explicitly says that it is a rules source, but the argument from premium books has some kinda logic, maybe. Not my kinda logic, but it's not hyper-arbitrary. The FAQ, however, doesn't even have that, and there's not really anything intrinsic to an FAQ that makes it a rules source.

[The Grue]

Ugh, tell your friend to have some common sense. If shapechange lets you apply one template, then it would have to let you apply all of them. At once.

Kaiju Half-Gold Dragon Paragon Salmon of Legend, anyone?

Kaiju Half Gold Dragon Paragon Salmon of Legend

Hit Dice: 50d12+1,600 (Note: Due to the Paragon Template, the Salmon always has MAX HP, which is a total of 2,200 HP)
Initiative: +13 (+9 Dex, +4 for Improved Initiative)
Speed: Swimming 60, Flying 60 (Poor Maneuverability), Land 60
AC: 71 (+12 Insight, +12 Luck, +24 Natural, +9 Dex, +4 Haste)

Attacks: Bite+103, 2 Claws +101, Ray Attack +84 (Base Attack Bonus is +50, +25 Luck, +28 Str., -8 for size, -2 to the claw attacks with the Multiattack Feat)
Damage: Bite 4d8+48, Claw 2d8+48
Face/Reach: 40ft. By 80ft/ Reach is 20ft.

Saves: Fort: +60, Ref: +49, Wis: +49
Abilities: Str 79 (+28), Dex 28 (+9), Con 50 (+20), Int 21 (+5), Wis 29 (+9), Cha 25 (+7)
Skills: +10 competence bonus to all skills, and has a total of 550 Skill points to spend.
Feats: Improved Initiative, Multiattack, Flyby Attack, Blind Fight, Combat Reflexes, Cleave, Great Cleave, Dodge, Power Attack, Improved Bullrush, Improved Critical (Claws), Improved Critical (Bite), Battle Roar, Stunning Roar, Thunderous Roar, Penetrate Hardness

Special Attacks:

Raging Blood: The electrically charged blood of the Salmon sprays outward in a 5ft cone whenever it is damaged with a Piercing or Slashing attack. Anything in range takes 1d4 points of Electrical damage, no Saving throw allowed.

Breath Weapon: The salmon can breathe a 30ft long cone of fire that deals 6d10 damage, Reflex save DC 78 for half damage

Ray Attack: The Salmon may, once every 1d4 rounds, generate a beam of electricity that deals 15d6 points of damage. This is a ranged touch attack, and has a range of 300 feet.

Swallow Whole: The Salmon can try to swallow an opponent of Huge or smaller size by making a successful grapple check (+13 Insight bonus to the grapple check, in addition to whatever else normally add's into a grapple). Once swallowed, the unfortunate creature takes 2d6+28 points of crushing damage and 3d6 points of acid damage per round. The creature can cut it’s way out using claws or a light weapon by dealing 50 points of damage to the Salmon’s digestive tract (the tract is AC 20). Once a creature exits, muscular action closes the hole, so another swallowed creature must cut it’s own way out.

Trample: As a standard action during it’s turn each round, the Salmon can run over an opponent of Gargantuan size or smaller. The damage for this is 4d12+28. Trampled opponents can attempt an Attack of Opportunity, but this attack suffers a -4 penalty to hit. If they do not make an Attack of Opportunity, they may attempt a Reflex Save for half damage. The Save DC is 76.

Battle Frenzy: When the Salmon is reduced to 25% or less of it’s total HP, it gains a +4 bonus to Strength and may make one additional bite attack each round. This attack suffers a -5 to hit penalty. These benefits cease once the Salmon is healed above 25% of it’s total HP, or is reduced to 0 HP or less.

Special Qualities: Draconian wings, Fire Immunity, Cold Resistance 10, Electricity Resistance 50, Damage Reduction 20/+6, Spell Resistance 40, Fast Healing 20, Darkvision 120ft

Immune to Mind Influencing Effects (Ex): The Salmon is immune to mind influencing effects (charms, compulsions, phantasms, patterns, and morale effects). Certain powerful artifacts may be able to control the Salmon, but for the most part, such magic is beyond the ken of mortals.

See Invisibility: The Salmon can continuously See Invisibility, as the spell cast by a 20th level Sorcerers. It can suppress or resume this ability as a free action.

Haste (Su): The Salmon is supernaturally quick and may take an extra partial action every round.

Reflective Hide (Su): The Salmon’s scales act as if they were permanently protected by a Spell Turning effect.

Death Throes (Su): The Salmon, when killed, will explode in a burst of electrical energy that deals 20d6 points of damage to everything within 100 feet. Creatures in this area of effect must make Reflex throws DC 55 to take half damage.

CR: 31? (+12 for Paragon, +15 for Kaiju, +2 for Half Drag, +2 for Creature of Legend)

[Talya]

Let's use an analogy:

A country's tax code says that income taxes must be filed prior to April 1st to avoid penalties.

An official legislator in that country tells someone asking him if he can safely file his taxes on April 2nd without penalty, and he says yes.
A different official legislator in that country suggests that anyone not filing before March 30th is delinquent and must be arrested.

Both of the statements by official legislators are "official" sources and have said things different from the legal tax code. How "official" are the statements? How much weight do they have?


The FAQ is much like that. Meant to clarify the rules, most of what the FAQ says is already obvious and can be inferred by reading the rules they are clarifying. However, anything stated in the FAQ that is not directly and obviously stated in the rules carries absolutely zero weight.

Now, in D&D or any other RPG, the players (particularly the DM) are the ultimate rules source, so if the DM likes a particular FAQ contradiction, he or she is free to adopt it. I tend to do this in rare cases when actual game rule writers speak up to clarify how bad editing changed the intent of what they wrote (that happened a lot in Star Wars Saga Edition, where the "too many cooks" problem kept causing designers to change each others content). But that in no way changes the rules as written. It's just a reasonable DM houserule.

[Mato]

Long story short, are the FAQs provided by Wizards official rulings on situations? Like how the Paizo ones, while not "official" are still legal rule clarifications?Yes they are. The FAQ is published in the same line of articles (game rules) as the errata and the 3.0-to-3.5 update booklet.

It has a bad reputation obtained from it's usage on WotC's forums. Often a certain kind of lengthy debate would cycle through a few threads for a few weeks leading someone to contact customer service. So imagine this sort of reply happening in a thread.

I just contacted cust, they said you are wrong.

Q: Can humans see colors in D&D?
A: Thanks for your question yourname, humans can see blue and yellow in D&D. Purchase complete adventurer if you want them to be able to see the color red.
You would think customer service is incorrect, a bumbling bunch of monkeys, people unworthy of taking answers from. But then it hits you, I didn't just quote customer service. The truth of the matter is I made that up. And if you rebuke it's honesty I'll defend my self by reporting your post for calling me a liar to get you banned.

Quite a conundrum with only one means to deal with. Now you'll contact customer service and you'll post your results (which may also be made up). Someone else a bit wise than the rest will realize both can be imaginary replies and contact customer service. Soon the inbox is flooded with questions. So the writer(s) in charge decide to publish the answer. - A wizards of the coast officially issued statement on how something is supposed to work in a manner no one can refute the validity of such. - And this can take the form of an ask wizard's article, sage advice, or the FAQ depending on who does the answering and through what channels it is allowed. The last one being the only one considered prestigious enough to be housed under the game rules page btw. About one half of the people in the ongoing debate whom are partially convinced wotc's staff knows very little will now have to concede they are wrong because the FAQ has officially told them so. ...They took it about as well as you'd expect.

In all honestly, the FAQ is much like any other supplement. Most of it you can shrug at, there are a few gems of usefulness for optimizers to cherry pick from, nearly everything it states makes perfect sense if you didn't have a card in the debate it came from, and it does have an error (it appears to argue with the errata over arcane thesis) so it fits in with the rest of the poorly written supplements.


The FAQ is an "official interpretation" to the rules, and is usually used to clarify an existing rule rather than replace or amend the existing rules.

The mechanism for replacing or amending the existing rules is via the official errata files. If the fix isn't important enough to print in the errata, then most likely it's still just an interpretation or suggestion. If the FAQ were intended to be official rules, then the errata files wouldn't exist, and the FAQ = errata.

Other than that, "whatever works best for your game" is still the best policy that trumps both the FAQ and errata.Words have no inherent value, they are a means to transmit a message from one person to another. By the definitions of communication whomever has the delegation of interpretation of those words holds the highest priority of all. You can watch the linked video in my signature for an entertaining thesis on this subject for more information.

Also the errata's "role" isn't updating rules, it's correcting printing mistakes. See the definition of it's singular form, "erratum". Most of D&D's actual rule updates come from rule supplements. Such as complete arcane's rules on spell-like abilities and prestigious classes, the miniature handbook and subsequent reprints of the newer swift and immediate actions, libris mortis updated incorporeality, the magic item compendium updated the actions required for activating magic items, and so on. The rules compendium being the largest single update, it's designed and states it updates all preexisting core rule books and supplements and while most of it's contained rules therein are a compendium of previous updated rules, some of which are specifically updated in the rc. The idea that only the errata can update the rules as a means to say the FAQ cannot would be one of the single worst displays of about the lack of understanding and knowledge of the D&D rule structure you could ever make in your life if you truly considered things so.

But yes, rule 0, house rules, and gentleman agreements can of course trend the game towards a more reasonable stand point.

[Psyren]

Let's use an analogy:

A country's tax code says that income taxes must be filed prior to April 1st to avoid penalties.

An official legislator in that country tells someone asking him if he can safely file his taxes on April 2nd without penalty, and he says yes.
A different official legislator in that country suggests that anyone not filing before March 30th is delinquent and must be arrested.

Both of the statements by official legislators are "official" sources and have said things different from the legal tax code. How "official" are the statements? How much weight do they have?

This is actually a bad analogy - at least in the US - because IRS policy statements/revenue procedures/private letters and other guidance (which would be akin to FAQ rulings in a roleplaying game) do in fact have legal weight in court. The tax code itself could be considered RAW, and if the FAQ ruling does not outright contradict the law then you don't have a leg to stand on in saying you ignored the guidance. If it does contradict the tax code, then you have a shot at saying you were justified in ignoring it, but even then you might lose because policy statements tend to focus more on intent and subjective or complex corner situations, and it might become a case of specific trumps general against you.

This is the key point here - if the rules are vague or even silent on something and the FAQ is clear, the FAQ should win. If the rules are clear on something and the FAQ contradicts it, then the rules should win and they should issue an errata if they really want the FAQ ruling to stand (i.e. change the law.)



The list goes on and on, every rule should be considered to end in "except when indicated otherwise", because sooner or later it probably will happen.

Er, that's exactly the point I was making. Specific Trumps General is the most important rule, not Primary Source.

[Vogonjeltz]

it does have an error (it appears to argue with the errata over arcane thesis)

Something of note, the FAQ specifically states that it does not cover errata. So that's a consequence of the non-errata version of arcane thesis being examined. So it is correct, up until the errata gets applied.


If the rules are clear on something and the FAQ contradicts it,

The problem comes when someone thinks the rules are clear (but they aren't) and that the FAQ somehow got it wrong. If it were really clear, there wouldn't be a question about it in the Frequently Asked Questions.

[Karnith]

Something of note, the FAQ specifically states that it does not cover errata. So that's a consequence of the non-errata version of arcane thesis being examined. So it is correct, up until the errata gets applied.
It does cover errata, though; see e.g. the first Artificier answer on page 10, the Trackless Step(/class abilities) and Wild Shape answer on page 15, or the first Scout question on page 25 (among many other answers). The aforementioned Arcane Thesis answer is just one of a number of bad FAQ answers.

[Psyren]

Sure but sometimes the FAQ ruling comes first. For example, the article that says AMF blocks line of effect (07/2004) came out before Rules Compendium, (10/2007) where they stated that it does not. In this case, the PHB wasn't clear, the FAQ said one thing and then they came down on the other side more officially.

[eggynack]

The problem comes when someone thinks the rules are clear (but they aren't) and that the FAQ somehow got it wrong. If it were really clear, there wouldn't be a question about it in the Frequently Asked Questions.
That's just not really the case. The answer to a question can be clear cut by the rules, without being obvious, and it can even be both clear cut and obvious, because questions that are frequently asked aren't always brain destroying monstrosities of difficulty.

[Karnith]

That's just not really the case. The answer to a question can be clear cut by the rules, without being obvious, and it can even be both clear cut and obvious, because questions that are frequently asked aren't always brain destroying monstrosities of difficulty.
In fact, a lot of questions in the FAQ have blindingly obvious answers, and were (I am fairly certain) asked by people who did little to no research on their own.

On a related note, it's kinda fun to just go through the FAQ to look at the silly and/or bizarre questions that are in there.

[Curmudgeon]

The FAQ is an official D&D 3.5 document, produced by Wizards of the Coast.
Yes, it's official. But what's official is exactly what's stated: Frequently Asked Questions. Much effort went into picking representative questions from the many thousands submitted to WotC, to illustrate issues in the rules.

It can't get more official than that.
Oh, that's not true. Official Answers to go along with the Official FAQ would have been nice. As it is, we've got just whatever came to mind of the person (Skip Williams, Andrew Collins, Mike Mearls) sitting at the desk that day trying to make the Dragon issue deadline.

[torrasque666]

Now that's just nitpicking. A FAQ has both questions and answers. Otherwise what would be the point other than to showcase "Hey, these are questions we get asked a lot!"

[Psyren]

Now that's just nitpicking.

Have you met Curmudgeon :smallbiggrin:

[eggynack]

Yes, it's official. But what's official is exactly what's stated: Frequently Asked Questions. Much effort went into picking representative questions from the many thousands submitted to WotC, to illustrate issues in the rules.

Oh, that's not true. Official Answers to go along with the Official FAQ would have been nice. As it is, we've got just whatever came to mind of the person (Skip Williams, Andrew Collins, Mike Mearls) sitting at the desk that day trying to make the Dragon issue deadline.
Damn, that's some beautiful logic. I like to think that this is somehow what was intended. Like, they were all sitting around a table, and one of them said, "Hey, how's about we write up some questions that were officially asked a lot. We can put our stamp on the idea that, yes, these are valid questions."

"This might come out of left field by a bit, but how about answers to those questions. It's crazy, but it just might work."

"Well, we can put some answers down, but they're going to be there in a strictly unofficial capacity."

"You, sir, are brilliant."

[Graypairofsocks]

The mechanism for replacing or amending the existing rules is via the official errata files. If the fix isn't important enough to print in the errata, then most likely it's still just an interpretation or suggestion. If the FAQ were intended to be official rules, then the errata files wouldn't exist, and the FAQ = errata.

Note that we can't know for sure, due to how the wotc d&d team tended to screw things up.