?WotC's FAQ =? RAW ?

[RagnaroksChosen]

So I've seen alot of people use the FAQ as a point in some of the Arguments/Disscusions on this board. Only to be countered with the FAQ is not RAW. I want to see if others have seen this and what they think about this Topic.

Personaly I think that the FAQ is considered RAW as it is put out at Wizards. Also I know the RPGA use's them in official rulings. I personaly think that the FAQ is there to help explain some of the rules that are vague.

Well any way hoping to spark disscussion on this...

Please pardon my spelling.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

There is Sage, CustServ, and FAQ that get referenced in debates here. None are official RAW. FAQ is usually RAI, but their interpretations, though usually balanced, have in cases completely ignored and contradicted published materials (see the WRT entry where they state you don't count as your own ally unless it specifically says so, ignoring the statement on the subject in the SRD). They are usually worse with the rules than the "Q&A as RAW" thread here. Yes, they usually suggest something balanced, but they are not anything close to accurate with the rules.

[Jasdoif]

The FAQ is a collection of questions and answers, not rules. Since it's not rules, it simply cannot be "rules as written". It does, however, have a sufficiently official stature that for the most part it's acceptable for resolving questions that aren't clear by the rules.

[Saph]

There is no such thing as an absolute, ironclad D&D RAW that everyone agrees on. There's just varying degrees of collectively accepted interpretation.

The FAQ is fairly high up there, in that about 95% of it is accepted to almost the same level as the SRD. There's the occasional dispute, though, mostly coming down to contradictions and rules which are so ambiguous or badly worded that there really is no correct reading. (Iron Heart Surge, for instance.)

- Saph

[Curmudgeon]

There have been, and still are, clear rules errors in the FAQ. For instance, this turkey:

You may 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 (Player’s Handbook, page 142).

Since Skip Williams conveniently provided a page number, you can easily verify that there's nothing in the rules that permits sheathing as a free action.

Any collection of answers that clearly ignores the rules cannot be RAW. While most of the FAQ is reasonably well thought out opinion, none of it is rules.

[RukiTanuki]

It seems important to some that the discussion focus on places in the rules that say "you are allowed to do this" vs. "you are not allowed to do this."

There are places where the rules, strictly interpreted, as written, permit something (or at the least, fail to prohibit something adequately given other rules) that was either against designer intent, or against the intent of most DMs who dislike changing the rules (or both). This is commonly referred to as "no one would run it that way."

Eratta tends to say "This is the correct writing for this rule." Q&A tends to say "This is how you should use this rule," without rewriting it. To avoid all the situations where the DM is instructed to select the most reasonable outcome, discussions tend to focus on the rules themselves, and only include Wizards statements that officially rewrite the rule or add content as part of the rule itself (rather than an interpretation of it).

RAI is, indeed, far more useful in practice, since that's (nigh by definition) how it's supposed to be used. But that leads to most people agreeing on what they'd do, and we all move on. And that's no fun on the Internet. :)

[Curmudgeon]

RAI is, indeed, far more useful in practice, since that's (nigh by definition) how it's supposed to be used. But that leads to most people agreeing on what they'd do, and we all move on.

Yes, but it doesn't necessarily align with what the designers intended, or with the FAQ author's opinion.

Case in point, from the latest FAQ:

The Jump check and the Tumble check to avoid taking falling damage do stack. So if a character makes both, he/she would effectively reduce the distance fallen by 20 feet as far as damage is concerned.

If you succeed on the check, you take falling damage as if you had dropped 10 fewer feet than you actually did.

Treat a fall as if it were 10 feet shorter than it really is when determining damage.

The interesting thing about this FAQ opinion is that it's a reasonable ruling, but it doesn't match the wording of the rules. Both of these reference the actual distance dropped, so they shouldn't, by RAW, stack. But realistically, they should: you first absorb some of the impact with your jumping (leg) muscles, then roll to dissipate some more of the impact. Everybody I've gamed with thought the clear intent of the designers was that these not stack, based on how they were worded.

[Emperor Tippy]

The FAQ is in no way, shape, or form RAW. It is (possibly) RAI but even then it has a lot of outright incorrect and/or idiotic interpretations.

Many people look at the FAQ as RAW and use it to justify an opinion (White Raven Tactics being a very common occurrence).

And CustServ is even worse (ask the same question 10 times and you will get 10 different answers, many of them contradictory).

[Reel On, Love]

There is Sage, CustServ, and FAQ that get referenced in debates here. None are official RAW. FAQ is usually RAI, but their interpretations, though usually balanced, have in cases completely ignored and contradicted published materials (see the WRT entry where they state you don't count as your own ally unless it specifically says so, ignoring the statement on the subject in the SRD). They are usually worse with the rules than the "Q&A as RAW" thread here. Yes, they usually suggest something balanced, but they are not anything close to accurate with the rules.

Their WRT ruling is fine. An ally doesn't usually include you unless it says it does; Allies does include you.

Edit: like it or not, the FAQ is official.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Their WRT ruling is fine. An ally doesn't usually include you unless it says it does; Allies does include you.

How does that work? I'd think that unless there was a second entry referring to ally(singular), the statement that you count as your own ally in any case that refers to allies would also apply.

Edit: like it or not, the FAQ is official.

It isn't RAW, though. It's not errata, it's WotC saying "that probably should work this way". It may be official, but when it is as bad about listening to the rules as it is, I'm not going to listen to it. It may be official, but it's not right.

[Reel On, Love]

How does that work? I'd think that unless there was a second entry referring to ally(singular), the statement that you count as your own ally in any case that refers to allies would also apply.

IIRC, that is how it's used. Most of the other "an ally" stuff specifies "yourself or an ally".

It isn't RAW, though. It's not errata, it's WotC saying "that probably should work this way". It may be official, but when it is as bad about listening to the rules as it is, I'm not going to listen to it. It may be official, but it's not right.

Sometimes the RULES are bad at listening to the rules (recent example brought up was "spells and items never grant dodge bonuses", with examples of spells and items that do). Sometimes the rules are just plain bad. I'm at a loss as to how you could hold "drowning sets you to 0" as somehow more legitimate than "Monks can TWF with their unarmed strike". They're both official.