Errata vs FAQ for arcane thesis

[Xathrax]

Hello,

After googling a bit I found a few threads about it, but they were quite old and I decided to avoid necromancy.

I was arguing with my DM regarding the proper text for Arcane Thesis. According to the FAQ it reduces the total metamagic cost by 1 while according to the errata it reduces EACH metamagic by 1. For me it makes sense that the FAQ is not the best source and the errata ruling makes much more sense, however he argues that whichever source has been published last is the one to use. The latest version of the FAQ has been published much later than the PHBII errata, but something makes me think that they don't really change the old answers they gave and several handbooks hint that the errata on Arcane Thesis was published AFTER the FAQ. Am I right? Is the errata to be used in this case? If so how do I build a strong argument for this?

I do realize that these things can be up to the DM. However this is an argument about what the official rule for this would be.

Your input would be greatly appreciated. References to particular sources proving that this is accurate would be very helpful.

[Sian]

FAQ's aren't official ruling but how the unlucky winner of the weekly straw draw at Wizards believes it works

[Xathrax]

FAQ's aren't official ruling but how the unlucky winner of the weekly straw draw at Wizards believes it works

I tried to make that argument, but since that is a document published by Wizards it was difficult to say it's invalid. Is there any place that states that the FAQ is not official?

[Andezzar]

I tried to make that argument, but since that is a document published by Wizards it was difficult to say it's invalid. Is there any place that states that the FAQ is not official?(Nearly) every errata document says so:

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.The Eratum is the primary source. FAQ aren't even mentioned as rules source. FAQ stands for Frequently Asked Questions (and answers). In this case the questions are about D&D rules. So the FAQ are text about rules in other publications, they are not rules themselves.

[Twurps]

I read a great thread on the 'ranking' of different rules-sources and I'm pretty sure it was on this very forum. If only my google-fu wasn't failing me utterly today....

[Mato]

I've seen a case made that by Andezzar quote, swift actions don't exist. The concept is the errata never altered quicken spell, all subsequent printings that claim quickened spell is now a swift action is in direct contradiction to the player's handbook, which according to the errata is the primary source and the only one that matters.

The fact of the matter is people will choose to believe whatever they wish. They don't test their idea to see if it's valid or not, they just try ramming it down your throat. If you accept it, they were right and that's all they care about, and if you don't then you are wrong and they were right and that's all they care about. Catch my drift?

For your answer Xathrax, choose an answer that allows you to remain consistent with how you handle the rules and don't be afraid of being wrong if a contradiction is found later, reevaluate your prospective on the matter and learn from it. It's a game, but how you choose to act within it is still you.

[Andezzar]

I've seen a case made that by Andezzar quote, swift actions don't exist. The concept is the errata never altered quicken spell, all subsequent printings that claim quickened spell is now a swift action is in direct contradiction to the player's handbook, which according to the errata is the primary source and the only one that matters.No, this does not remove swift actions. The primary source for swift actions is whatever book you find the rules for them. Quicken Spell however does not use swift actions. To cast a quickened spell is a Free action, but such an action can only be taken once per turn. This is very similar to a swift action, but it does not take your swift action. So you could cast a quickened spell, a spell with 1 swift action casting time and a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action. I don't know why D20SRD says Quicken Spell changes the casting time to 1 swift action.

[Sliver]

No, this does not remove swift actions. The primary source for swift actions is whatever book you find the rules for them. Quicken Spell however does not use swift actions. To cast a quickened spell is a Free action, but such an action can only be taken once per turn. This is very similar to a swift action, but it does not take your swift action. So you could cast a quickened spell, a spell with 1 swift action casting time and a spell with a casting time of 1 standard action. I don't know why D20SRD says Quicken Spell changes the casting time to 1 swift action.

Sure, casting a quickened spell is a free action that costs you your swift action. Because the rules for swift action say that casting a quickened spell is a swift action. The swift action rules don't have to change the action of a quickened spell, because they technically can't, but you still can't take a swift action and cast a quickened spell at the same time.

[Andezzar]

The rule for swift actions does say that casting a quickened spell is a swift action, but it cannot change the Feat Quicken Spell or the Actions in Combat section because of the Primary Source rule. As such this line is irrelevant.

[Douglas]

something makes me think that they don't really change the old answers they gave and several handbooks hint that the errata on Arcane Thesis was published AFTER the FAQ. Am I right?
I am almost certain this is correct, that the specific entry in the FAQ was added before the errata and they never thought to update it, but I don't know how you might verify that.

In any case, errata is official rules text, FAQ is not. Errata should take precedence over FAQ no matter the publication dates.

[Mato]

See what I mean?

And swift actions are just the tip of the iceberg. Everything from complete warrior's alteration to qualifying for prcs to complete arcane's weapon-like spells entry operates in the same manner. Ironically the DMG tells you what are the core rules are and the errata isn't among them. So to even consider what the errata says, you need give the document an initial status in the rules structure based on the consideration that WotC issuing it under game rules, the same location of the faq, in the first place.

And the subject goes even deeper than that. Andezzar didn't quote the errata, he quoted one of them, an outdated one published in February 2006. How do I know this you ask?

After the initial release of several errata documents WotC continued with the project releasing more errata documents. By June 2006 the delegation entry was updated and for the remainder of errata releases remained more or less intact (it's absent in champion & scoundrel).

When the text within a product contradicts itself, our general policy is that the primary source (actual rules text) is correct and any secondary reference (such as in a monster’s statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically. Updates are called out via shaded text like this.The Errata updated it's self by saying we're doing things in a different way now and this corrected text acknowledges that subsequent books update the rules. For example, the PHB was no longer the go to book on rules such as spellcasting. The errata used it's final authority it granted it's self in February to say it isn't final authority anymore, and using it as such is contrary to what the errata is telling you to do.

I hope this gives you an idea of what I mean by consistent Xathrax. It's nothing to come out and say that as a DM you don't want X book on the table, but try not to validate your personal preference on an incorrect assumption. You're just setting your self up if you do.

[Xathrax]

Thanks for all the replies. This was most helpful.

[Darrin]

The Arcane Thesis entry in the FAQ was added on 1/26/2007:

http://wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv01262007.zip

The PHB2 errata was released on 10/16/2007:

http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/files/PHB2_Errata.zip

Thus, the PHB2 errata supercedes the FAQ.

The FAQ contains an amalgamation of previous rulings that were made well before the 6/30/2008 publication date. The only thing that was "new" in that particular FAQ was marked in red text. Everything else in black text was previously published way, way before that. So... yet another reason to be very suspicious of the FAQ.

[Douglas]

And there's your verification. The errata on Arcane Thesis is indeed more recent than the FAQ entry on it.


The Arcane Thesis entry in the FAQ was added on 1/26/2007:

http://wizards.com/dnd/files/Main35FAQv01262007.zip
How did you find that?

[Xathrax]

Thanks everyone for the comments. It was very helpful. The GM agreed that I'm right(yay), but ended up saying that we're going to use the FAQ ruling for balance reasons which I'm not going to argue with.

Again, thank you for your time!

[Darrin]

How did you find that?

The archive site and wayback machine didn't work, so after that I got... a bit obsessed. Eventually I brute-forced the filename when I noticed the naming pattern was consistent and the FAQ was being updated roughly every two months.

I have no idea why it became so important to find that particular file... but it got found.