Best/Worst WotC FAQs

[AnimeTheCat]

Hey all! I regularly see statements that FAQ is inconsistent or that it doesn't follow RAW itself and that it is best to just not be considered while playing the game. I want to educate myself so I want to start by getting everyone's opinions of some of the best and worst FAQs. Best meaning the most consistent with the RAW and most positively influential on the game, and worst meaning most detached from the RAW or inconsistent or game breaking. I'm really only looking for FAQ content. Some of the FAQs that I specifically know about are the FAQ about using Practiced Spellcaster with the Wild Mage prestige class and the FAQ (FAQs - plural?) about Two Weapon Fighting. By that I mean, I know they exist and have read them, but I don't know how consistent they are.

Feel free to share general opinions of the FAQs as well, but try to show examples that support your opinion too so I can know where to look and what to look for.

[heavyfuel]

I could be misremembering, as this was years ago, but I do think it's from 3.x and not some other system.

There was this FAQ that said a dead creature's skin retained the creature's Ex abilities.

This makes some sense. After all, a red dragon's skin should still be immune to fire.

But this inspired a thread of people abusing it as the good munchkins they are. If anyone with better memory remembers it, I think it'll be appreciated for this thread

[AnimeTheCat]

That would be really really cool, especially if it were worded in a reasonable way. I've always houseruled/homebrewed that you could use special skins, scales, claws, teeth, etc. to make innately magical or powerful weapons, armor, and special items, so if there were an actual rule guiding it that would be really neat. Shame that it was poorly worded and only in FAQ.

[MisterKaws]

I could be misremembering, as this was years ago, but I do think it's from 3.x and not some other system.

There was this FAQ that said a dead creature's skin retained the creature's Ex abilities.

This makes some sense. After all, a red dragon's skin should still be immune to fire.

But this inspired a thread of people abusing it as the good munchkins they are. If anyone with better memory remembers it, I think it'll be appreciated for this thread

I remember that. Munchkin instinct led people to take colossus chops to make IKEA magic jammers en-masse.

[Venger]

There is no good faq. Sometimes, they get the rules right by accident, but 99% of the time they muddy the issues around basic rules, confusing new players who take the term faq at face value, like with grappling (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050301a)

[Mato]

Q1: I regularly see users wasting time pretending things don't exist and debating the meaning of a word, how does this happen, why do people do it, and what can I do to help stop it?
A1: How? I have a wonderful video in my signature that covers the ground work for this subject.
A2: Why? I'm not saying why & you can file any complaints with Guy Winch. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-squeaky-wheel/201811/why-its-so-hard-some-people-admit-they-were-wrong)
A3: I wish I had an answer on how to "fix it", but I don't. Recently I had some insight given to me on this topic, and it's clear better leadership is a key.

Q2: But that's not what I asked, I wanted to know why people drop to using a view point shared by a few for support when trying to discredit a source that proves them wrong.
A: When reworded like this, it almost gives you the answer doesn't it? :smallamused:
Everything that appears in the FAQ was once a hotly debated topic on WotC's forum or at conventions. And those topics originally come from two ideas about one or more rules within the original source(s) that conflict with each other. Which means every single entry inherently joined one side of the debate and earned praise from some and condemnation from others. As one particular group was louder than the other, new people were initially exposed to one concept over another putting them at a disadvantage of having to learn to overcome it. Especially if they used it in an argument before.

Q3: But that's not what I asked, I wanted specific examples I could cite later on.
A3: I'm not, and will not be, the only one in this thread giving a "vague" answer. :smallwink:

[Willie the Duck]

I recall a very spirited debate on the WotC forums when the FAQ clarified that you could, despite the wording in the PHB, use a shield bash as a primary attack if you'd been disarmed and just wanted to use your shield as a weapon, not use it as a supplemental off-hand weapon. As you can imagine, there where many a cry of 'if it's not spelled out in errata, than it's WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!@!!'

[Particle_Man]

Nearby, the worst Errata is that for the Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords. This is because after two entries and a half it changes into the errata for Complete Arcane, as a bad cut and past job.

And Tome of Battle really could have used a little love in the errata.

See for yourself:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata

[thelastorphan]

There is no good faq. Sometimes, they get the rules right by accident, but 99% of the time they muddy the issues around basic rules, confusing new players who take the term faq at face value, like with grappling (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050301a)

That FaQ is very close to how my group has always sort of played Grappling in 3.5 based on the text in the books. I assume this, because no one in our group really ever gave a damn about WotC's take on the rules they wrote and always tended to suss things out on our own, fairly diplomatically.

[Ellyth]

Assuming we are sticking to the FAQ/custserv answers, and not to the errata mix-up for Tome of Battle (which, embarrassingly, is still on their website), the worst answer has to be the one for iron heart surge that led to IHS’ing the sun. Not only were the ramifications of that ruling patently absurd in their abuses, and fairly blatant at that, but also the question itself suggested two possibilities, either of which would have made sense, and custserv came up with a third, absolutely bonkers ruling instead. Reminds me of one of those “absolutely no one” memes.

[StevenC21]

Nearby, the worst Errata is that for the Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords. This is because after two entries and a half it changes into the errata for Complete Arcane, as a bad cut and past job.

And Tome of Battle really could have used a little love in the errata.

See for yourself:

http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/errata

This makes me livid. Especially since it cuts off right on the errata for the worst ability in ToB.

Ah the Firesnake. You ever wanted to conjure an uncontrolled "creature" (that's actually an unforgettable line effect) that never moves and never goes away? Now's your chance!

[Mike Miller]

The errata for time of battle was affecting the warblade, so the warblade used Iron Heart Surge on the errata.

[StevenC21]

I want to laugh. I really do.

But at this point I mostly just want to cast Meteor Swarm on WoTC HQ.

[Particle_Man]

I live in hope that someone, somewhere, will find (and post) the actual errata on an old hard drive, like someone finding an old Doctor Who episode in someone's attic.

[Mato]

the worst answer has to be the one for iron heart surge that led to IHS’ing the sun.I know we're on GitP and they treat it seriously, but that predates the FAQ entry and was started as joke. The sun doesn't even have a duration entry and if you think ending the effect of a photon reflecting off someone should terminate the sun, you might as well say dispelling the shaken effect from a fear aura should terminate the lich. It doesn't make sense is part of the satirical humor to it.

And I feel like I'm going to waste my time here since the root problem is false attributions from disjointedly linked associations. Because that's not just IHS's problem, but how everyone treats the FAQ too. But let's back up for a moment.

Your fighting spirit, dedication, and training allow you to overcome almost anything to defeat your enemies. When you use this maneuver, select one spell, effect, or other condition currently affecting you and with a duration of 1 or more rounds. That effect ends immediately.Every complaint about ISHing the sun away because the sun has a duration, as dumb as it may be, is based on the entry in the Tome of Battle.

The FAQ simply answered a question that a duration entry of permanent is longer than one round (which logically: is yes). But that is another subject and it does help to understand that we're not discussing time but D&D's usage of duration entries. Such as how an effect can not have one, or that "instantaneous" can last hundreds of rounds, or that permanent are not eternally unalterable because you can still interact, alter, dispel, discharge, and suppress them.

[Mike Miller]

IHS vs Sun snip snip

I don't think it is all a farce about turning off the sun. Take a vampire warblade. Suddenly, the vampire doesn't die in the sun, thanks to IHS.

More on point, is there a collection of FAQs?

[MisterKaws]

I don't think it is all a farce about turning off the sun. Take a vampire warblade. Suddenly, the vampire doesn't die in the sun, thanks to IHS.

More on point, is there a collection of FAQs?

There is. Don't know if it's okay to post, so you'll have to look around. The full compilation of all wizards archives is around 2gb.

[Mato]

More on point, is there a collection of FAQs?Do you mean this one (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rules)?

And as far as customer services entries posted on the forums I have them all right here.

From: WotC's custserv
Re: Is everything I say correct and how can I prove I didn't make this email or it's response up?

No one ever makes anything up to win an argument on the Internet so you don't need to prove anything Sir Lord God-King Mato, Knower Of Everything And The Master Of All.

[Mike Miller]

I figured they would be archived on the WotC site

[MisterKaws]

I figured they would be archived on the WotC site

They are, just not in a convenient form.