Allez, rules lawyers! Three questions for you!

[.Zero]

1) Are FAQ official material or not?

2) Why this debate even exist?

3) Do you have sources for your answers?

[Urpriest]

1) Are FAQ official material or not?


What do you mean by official?

[Emperor Tippy]

1) Are FAQ official material or not?
In 3.5? No.
In Pathfinder? Yes iirc.


2) Why this debate even exist?
Because people like being right on the internet and the FAQ can sometimes be helpful in proving (or disproving) a position.

[eggynack]

To be more accurate, the FAQ definitely is official, cause it says official right there, but the question is whether it qualifies as official RAW. And it really doesn't. The FAQ is a resource that says things about the rules, rather than one that constructs new rules, and it is thus physically incapable of writing over already existing rules. The only situation where it would be plausible for the FAQ to make a difference is one in which the actual RAW is actually just completely ambiguous, but getting folks to agree to perfect ambiguity in a situation is tricky, and even then the FAQ might still be worthless.

[Snowbluff]

The 3.5 FAQ is often disregarded RAW because the people who wrote it did not know the rules of the game... and sometimes acted like they couldn't read. :smalltongue:

The PF FAQ is up to date and is considered rules text. It's frequently updated, which is awful when you are trying to keep abreast of the changes being made to the game. I'll reserve comment on the writers.

[Theomniadept]

I recall a Rules of the Game thing by Skip Williams in which he attempted to explain the rules by completely not knowing any of the rules.

[Rubik]

I recall a Rules of the Game thing by Skip Williams in which he attempted to explain the rules by completely not knowing any of the rules.So you recall nearly all of them? You must have an amazing memory.

[Snowbluff]

So you recall nearly all of them? You must have an amazing memory.

Ouch. Mega burn. :smalltongue:

[Curmudgeon]

Yes, the FAQ is official; however, that's a deceptively simple answer. The Frequently Asked Questions were picked from thousands of submissions to illustrate D&D rules issues; those are official. The answers to those questions are just what the person trying to make publication deadline came up with; they're not official. (Not only are those answers not declared as official in the FAQ document or the directory containing it, the Primary Sources Errata Rule claims that only an official errata file can disagree with a primary source — the three core rules books — and be right. Because the FAQ includes a bunch of answers that clearly disagree with those primary sources, it's simply wrong in each such case. For the sake of D&D player sanity generally, it's better that bone-headed FAQ answers aren't official.)

[KillianHawkeye]

Just to add something else, I'm pretty sure there have been cases where the D&D3.5 FAQ contradicted itself in different answers. To me, at least, that's the main reason to consider the FAQ untrustworthy.

[dextercorvia]

Just to add something else, I'm pretty sure there have been cases where the D&D3.5 FAQ contradicted itself in different answers. To me, at least, that's the main reason to consider the FAQ untrustworthy.

By that metric we have to throw out the PHB, MM1, and DMG. That doesn't leave us a lot to go with.

[Vogonjeltz]

1) Are FAQ official material or not?

2) Why this debate even exist?

3) Do you have sources for your answers?

1) Yes.
2) I believe the confusion found in this thread is sufficient answer to that.
3) The Wizards of the Coast page the FAQ is on: (now archived), and inside the FAQ itself both declare the FAQ as official.


Yes, the FAQ is official; however, that's a deceptively simple answer. The Frequently Asked Questions were picked from thousands of submissions to illustrate D&D rules issues; those are official. The answers to those questions are just what the person trying to make publication deadline came up with; they're not official. (Not only are those answers not declared as official in the FAQ document or the directory containing it, the Primary Sources Errata Rule claims that only an official errata file can disagree with a primary source — the three core rules books — and be right. Because the FAQ includes a bunch of answers that clearly disagree with those primary sources, it's simply wrong in each such case. For the sake of D&D player sanity generally, it's better that bone-headed FAQ answers aren't official.)

Key distinction: These aren't changes to the rules, they are rules clarifications, so they don't run afoul of the Errata Rule.

The rule remains exactly the same with no changes, this document just explains how their function actually works.

[Snowbluff]

All of the above is entirely wrong. :smalltongue:

[Brookshw]

All of the above is entirely wrong. :smalltongue:

So everything in the thread is wrong and its not official or unofficial :smalltongue:

Cool! I didn't know D&D had quantum rules :smallwink:

[Curmudgeon]

Key distinction: These aren't changes to the rules, they are rules clarifications, so they don't run afoul of the Errata Rule.
That's easily disproven with a single citation.

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).
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. The FAQ made a rule change there. You're not allowed to sheathe a weapon as a free action.

[Sith_Happens]

I recall a Rules of the Game thing by Skip Williams in which he attempted to explain the rules by completely not knowing any of the rules.

The Rules of the Game series is a bit different, in that it occasionally does add new rules.

[Snowbluff]

So everything in the thread is wrong and its not official or unofficial :smalltongue:

Cool! I didn't know D&D had quantum rules :smallwink:

I was just pointing out what Curmudgeon was. They try to change the rules with the FAQ, either intentionally or by just not being able to read.

SO, yes... the rules have quantum states. D:

[eggynack]

That's easily disproven with a single citation.
The FAQ made a rule change there. You're not allowed to sheathe a weapon as a free action.
I personally like the arcane thesis example more, as that part of the FAQ contradicts the errata, and the errata is an even higher form of RAW than the core books.

[KillianHawkeye]

Just to add something else, I'm pretty sure there have been cases where the D&D3.5 FAQ contradicted itself in different answers. To me, at least, that's the main reason to consider the FAQ untrustworthy.


By that metric we have to throw out the PHB, MM1, and DMG. That doesn't leave us a lot to go with.

Um... no? How do the three core books conflict with each other? Are you confused? Having exceptions to a rule isn't the same as saying the rule means one thing in one place and a different thing in a different place. :smallconfused::smallsigh:

[Vogonjeltz]

That's easily disproven with a single citation.
The FAQ made a rule change there. You're not allowed to sheathe a weapon as a free action.

Or, as some are fond of mentioning, it's a simple error. Granted, for it to be an error would require a negative affirmation whereby it is not possible to sheathe a weapon as part of a move action (things not covered by the rules fall under pg 144, miscellaneous actions)

"Some of these options are actions that take the place of or are variations on the actions described under Standard Actions, Move Actions, and Full-Round Actions."

[eggynack]

Or, as some are fond of mentioning, it's a simple error.
But if the FAQ can be erroneous in its clarification of the rules, then what is its value as a clarifying document? Who's to say that some other arbitrary part of the FAQ, not directly contradicted, isn't also erroneous?

[Urpriest]

Um... no? How do the three core books conflict with each other? Are you confused? Having exceptions to a rule isn't the same as saying the rule means one thing in one place and a different thing in a different place. :smallconfused::smallsigh:

How do you calculate the CR of a creature with NPC class levels? What does the Monster Manual say? What does the DMG say?

There is a viable synthesis of the two sets of rules, but it requires interpreting some as limited to a particular context, at which point you're adding new language that wasn't there before.

For that matter, the whole debate about Na abilities is another example of this sort of thing.

[dextercorvia]

How do you calculate the CR of a creature with NPC class levels? What does the Monster Manual say? What does the DMG say?

There is a viable synthesis of the two sets of rules, but it requires interpreting some as limited to a particular context, at which point you're adding new language that wasn't there before.

For that matter, the whole debate about Na abilities is another example of this sort of thing.

This, and just check out a few stat blocks. I'm sure you'll find things contradictory with the rules presented in that book. That is the whole reason for the primary source rule.

[.Zero]

This is going to be a very interesting thread.

I second eggynack's last post, that's the actual point of FAQ being incapable of clarifying rules.

To make an example, take the Sanctum Spell and Extra Slot question, on page 40. They say it's not legal to use sanctum spell and similar effects to get a higher spell slot in conjunction with extra slot.

WHY. ON. EARTH. DID. THEY. WROTE. THAT????

What i mean is that they didn't backed up that answer with rule quotes, they didn't explain why they gave that answer. What makes my head explode is that they simply wrote that you can't use that combo that way, without reasons. But if you read the feats you could easily figure out that you can instead, because it doesn't contradict the rules. FAQ contradicts RAW here. This makes FAQ an inconsistent source, and it's not really important if it's official or not.

If WotC would release a new 3.5 book tomorrow and in that book they'd say that spells higher that 1st level don't exist, well, you know that you'll burn that book along with its writers. Surely that's an official RAW source, but it would be totally stupid.

FAQ is full of situations like that, and this makes it irrelevant when talking about RAW.

More importantly, FAQ was intended to solve RAW issues, if RAW issues exist, thus it's not allowed to make errors. If a clarifying source makes errors, then that source loses its purpose and its credibility, becoming inconsistent. And FAQ is well known to be full of errors.

@Vogonjeltz
I don't see a real confusion here, exept the one you're bringing. By now, all posters agree that FAQ is not official and irrelevant, so what's your point?