Min/Max Boards

Play like you have to => The Polling Place => Topic started by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on March 06, 2013, 05:20:32 PM

Title: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on March 06, 2013, 05:20:32 PM
Will you all throw tomatoes if I mention the Pirate's code?

EDIT: my purpose is not to piss off soro. In fact his replies are hilarious and I always enjoy reading them. Cheers to a healthy discussion and do vote in the other polls here!
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: zook1shoe on March 06, 2013, 09:16:12 PM
#2 because they help with quite a few things, but some they totally blow up.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: linklord231 on March 06, 2013, 09:21:17 PM
The FAQ is not errata.  It does not have the authority to contradict what the rules actually say.  It is an excellent tool that clarifies designer intent in places where the rules are unclear, but it's still just advice.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: zook1shoe on March 06, 2013, 09:30:34 PM
I feel I was kind of stuck in between 2 and 3. I had to choose one ;)
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: wotmaniac on March 06, 2013, 09:56:35 PM
stuck between 2 & 3. (went with 2)


Will you all throw tomatoes if I mention the Pirate's code?

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/378811_537825522896723_1406798314_n.jpg)


wait .... why is that relevant?
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 06, 2013, 10:23:24 PM
Where is my option? Basically you've got extremist for (it's the holy bible!) and four options about how I should disagree with it.

You know, there is things I disagree with in the Books, Monks should be proficient with Unarmed Strikes, Flaming should stack with Flaming Burst, drowning shouldn't heal you, UMD shouldn't expend Turning Usages you don't have, Barbarians shouldn't be one of the weakest Classes in the game, Dread Necros shouldn't have an infinite Fear effect, Swordsage should maintain his AC Bonus while unarmored, a Colossal Creature shouldn't have the same Balance DC for standing on an inch wide beam as a Tiny Fey, and so on. This list is friggin endless.

I guess where I'm going with this, there is a lot of stuff in the game rules I disagree with, but my disagreeance isn't an excuse to blacklist an entire book. It'd be like saying a Spell to Power Erudite is a myth, because everyone thinks Complete Psionic is trash. Or there is no such thing as a Warblade, because the general view is the ToB is too animaish. The FAQ, Errata, SRD, and Update booklets are all part of the D&D rule structure in addition to the hard cover printed books. Who am I to claim an entire source is illrelavent because I don't like a single ruling? And if I am God and thus have the power to do this, exactly where should I draw the line to stop?
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: wotmaniac on March 06, 2013, 10:28:51 PM
did you forget to take your meds, SorO?
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: Bauglir on March 07, 2013, 12:35:12 AM
There's a fairly clear continuum from, "Strongly Agree", "Agree", "Neither Agree Nor Disagree", "Disagree", "Disagree Strongly", SorO. It's... pretty standard polling practice. There is literally nothing in the poll to get upset over if you can accept the validity of a multiple choice poll as a thing, with the possible exception that the wording of each choice is oversimplified as a joke, in a way that in no fashion obscures the meaning.

Anyway, they're more guidelines than actual rules.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: Concerned Ninja Citizen on March 07, 2013, 02:29:24 AM
SorO's issue seems to be that only the "strongly agree" option involves acknowledging FAQ as RAW. Even the next most positive option says "I'd like to enforce it as RAW except...."

There's a difference between saying "this piece of RAW is stupid" and "this is stupid, therefore it isn't RAW" and while pretty much everyone acknowledges that casting the "Darkness" spell to reduce total blackness to shadowy illumination is RAW, this poll seems to be of the opinion that the FAQ is not RAW. Only the holy bible level believers acknowledge it as RAW.

So if you agree with this quote:

The FAQ, Errata, SRD, and Update booklets are all part of the D&D rule structure in addition to the hard cover printed books.

The only option you have is "holy bible true believer" which is basically making fun of anyone who picks it. I can see getting upset over that.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 07, 2013, 09:06:44 AM
did you forget to take your meds, SorO?
As any salesmen will tell you, it's how you word a question is how you'll get an answer to it.

I love the FAQ! It is central to the most holy RAW! It must not be defiled! Without it, there would be ...
I can't say I'm in love with it any more than I am with Savage Species or any other book. And as noted, I have tons of problems with the entire D&D structure. And without it would the world end? No, 99% of the FAQ's rulings are for stupid people unable to read. So guess this option isn't for me even through I consider an integral part of the rule structure.

I like the FAQ except the part over here... I'd like to enforce it as RAW in my games except...
I like the FAQ but it isn't used in my games. At. All. And this is the #2 option? What a load of BS.

I like much of the FAQ but it isn't RAW. It's just a guide-line. I'll use it if I feel like it. I don't know when. Ease up already!
Now it's a guideline I never use. Great...

And it only goes down from there. One fifth the options are stick up the ass paladin and the other four are "fuck it".
Biaist much?

***

The forums them selves use a standard rule set, this consistency to which everyone acknowledges allows us to communicate with each other under probable assumptions.  For example, DM permission for PrC access, ignorance on multiclass XP gains, all WotC official allowed, cross campaign material, etc. When someone posts for specific build help they are list any home brew and allowed content so that we can tailor our answers to their specific rule set.

Which brings us to the real problem. Why is the boards screwing with it's own style in what is or which allowed in general context? IE why is the FAQ kicked out of a thread when certain people show up? That traces back to stupid ignorant dumbasses. There is no other title for it to me so you'll just have to deal with that title.

Recall some of the FAQ's rulings and rants that followed.
* Deepwarden has always stated you use your Con instead of Dex to AC, this is a replacement and obeys all rules as such. Claiming it ignores MDB in armor because the title is "Dexterity" has it's own fancy fallacy title.
* Precarious Apprentice doesn't meet requirements to cast 2nd level spells, this is stated in fact within the Feat. While the FAQ has a roundabout way of explaining it that would seem as a weak argument on the forums, it doesn't change the fact the outcome is still the same.
* And more recently, Empower Spell increases Attack Rolls. Which simultaneously had four of five people chipping in other wise. However, an offhand comment the FAQ already said no devolves into a flame war and these series of threads.

In every one of those cases the "FAQ" has gotten a bad name and several threads it's insulted. Why?

Well, people that fail to read the rules and post stupid stuff like that tend to be extremely argumentative and unable to ever admit they are wrong. So arguments devolve into a screaming match as each tries to prove there way is the one and only way to interpret things. The FAQ contains a number of paraphrased Questions & Answers to frequently seen, discussed, asked, and debated rules on their forums and emails. WotC essentially has used it to officially side with certain debates and declare it the official way to handle things. So to one half the debaters the FAQ becomes a short answer to shut up old arguments, while the other half can only play Sour Grapes.

If you haven't heard of the story of Sour Grapes. The entire thing is an euphemism for explaining a psychological tend. The story is about a wolf that desires grapes and fails to get them no matter how hard he tries. So in the end he says they were sour anyway.  The trend is when something is placed out of reach, either it or the objects in the way are devalued as a method of self defense. This can actually be seen in that Empower Spell discussion. Even through several people have chimed in, some stating reasons thereof, Zook does not even acknowledge them. In his eyes they are incorrect and him in his infinite wisdom has the one true answer. However, the FAQ was mentioned and it does in fact have the weight to say he is incorrect. So suddenly he throws the entire set of rules out the window insulting them. It's stupid, you should ignore it.

The topic then shifted from Empower Spell works like this or not (with the majority of people agreeing it don't) to a strawman that the FAQ should be ignored. - Minor tanget question for you, would you argue Complete Adventurer is wrong and Barbarians cannot enter Frenzy? Because in equivalence that's what that strawman amounts to. - And yet, the post was humored. And this stupid derailing happens all the goddamn time. In appearance, because of people like that, the FAQ plays a weak link and quick side track to distract people from the real discussion rather than obtaining any real resolve. And this happens every single time.

Which boils back down to one single question.
Why the hell do you tolerate it?

You think I'm out of line with my strict adherence to the FAQ? You people allow others to derail threads, you build this concept that rules can be ignored, you continue to side with the gray area that breeds this. If anyone is trolling the forums with FAQ related posts. It's you. So I hope you're happy with them. I'm not, that much is obvious I'm sure.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: zook1shoe on March 07, 2013, 12:12:15 PM
Why did you call me out specifically? I chose not to argue anymore about the FAQ thing here or in a certain other thread.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 07, 2013, 12:55:16 PM
Why did you call me out specifically? I chose not to argue anymore about the FAQ thing here or in a certain other thread.
You'd be happy to know it has little to do with you personally per se. But that little debate is a specific instance that at this current time is fresh in the minds of the would be several viewers.

I was tempted to simply pull of Plz's other thread, but decided that was a can of worms not worth opening. It's better to point and laugh.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: zook1shoe on March 07, 2013, 01:03:18 PM
 :cool k well i'm glad
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: wotmaniac on March 07, 2013, 06:56:34 PM
@ SorO:
a simple "yes" would have sufficed.   :p


seriously though -- I know exactly what you're talking about.   It's the internet -- meh.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 07, 2013, 08:04:18 PM
@ SorO:
a simple "yes" would have sufficed.   :p
Solo, not SorO, is in charge of the one liners.  ;)
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: wotmaniac on March 07, 2013, 08:11:42 PM
@ SorO:
a simple "yes" would have sufficed.   :p
Solo, not SorO, is in charge of the one liners.  ;)

 :lol :clap
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: Nunkuruji on March 13, 2013, 05:12:09 PM
Who does #2 work for
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 13, 2013, 08:14:18 PM
The poopieman?
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: zook1shoe on March 13, 2013, 09:24:48 PM
Who does #2 work for

you show that turd who's the boss!
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on March 14, 2013, 08:39:07 PM
Just bite you lip and give it Hell! Er, back to the thread:

I was tempted to simply pull of Plz's other thread, but decided that was a can of worms not worth opening. It's better to point and laugh.
Ah yes the high road. I did meant that seriously but it sounded sarcastic when I read it back. I don't understand the bolded part, but thanks for waiting out that thread. If I manage a 'here's to everyone can reconcile things' entry in that thread's second post, feel free to PM me about it. I might not like the heavy-handedness of your tone, but I do respect your opinion.

You people allow others to derail threads, you build this concept that rules can be ignored, you continue to side with the gray area that breeds this. If anyone is trolling the forums with FAQ related posts. It's you. So I hope you're happy
Ouch. But okay I'll fess up. It's all my fault ;)

About the bias... I haven't voted yet. Would you like me to? For the record I don't have a dog in the 3 examples listed (deepwarden, Precocious Apprentise and Empower spell). I do however have a really cool way of looking at metamagic.

Edit: I should also mention that ALL of the entries are slight parodies. You'll notice that the neutral option is very 'chill out dude!' rather than druid-like 'THY LEFT HAND SHALL COMPROMISE WITH THY RIGHT HAND.' I was going with humor, which I feel was heavier on the far negative position than the far positive one...
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on March 15, 2013, 09:24:08 AM
"Pull of" Is supposed to be "pull off of".

I have a semiunique talent to typo entire words and some times not enough time to fully proof read.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: RedWarlock on March 15, 2013, 11:44:07 AM
My view is somewhere in that neutral-opinioned gulf between #1 and #2, though I voted #2.

The FAQ is RAW. For rules discussions, end of story. But for actual play, that's up to us at my table to decide whether we want to obey strict RAW or not. Most of the time yes, but occasionally no. That's what houserules are for, but we hold no illusions, we know they're off the book.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on March 15, 2013, 04:37:05 PM
I'm the 1 (or 1st) vote for the: "I dislike ..."


I don't want to influence anyone else's opinion, but  ;)

The FAQ is kinda necessary on some level, for the
few players of the game, that go rules lawyer-ISH
without really throwing in with the rules at all.
Some people will argue the rules, and argue and argue,
and yet have no real intention of coming over here
to C.O.-ville and learning how the stuff really works.
The FAQ gives them an opportunity to quit their yap,
and get back to their homegame.

Meanwhile, C.O. can do what it has "usually" done,
evaluate whether the FAQ made the right ruling,
or what kind of spillover effects happen.  The FAQ
is more of a public relations thing, than the nitty-gritty
of the rules.


{ ... insert where's that pretty me looking in the mirror smiley face ... }
 :tongue
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: Bauglir on March 15, 2013, 04:56:58 PM
The major reason why I didn't vote #2 is that, by its nature as a clarification source, the FAQ is dealing with areas of the rules where it's necessarily a secondary source to whatever it's talking about. While, technically, the FAQ's general assertion that it is for clarification and not a source for new rules is trumped by any specific case of introducing a new rule, any rules claim the FAQ makes has to be compared to the actual published rules associated with it. I may be mistaken, but its track record isn't perfect on the count of consistency there, and tends to be whatever Skip thought sounded reasonable at the time. This makes the FAQ as a whole a much less solid category of RAW than most other sources, even if it's technically still RAW wherever it isn't contradicted.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: Havik_Stormcrow on August 21, 2013, 09:27:02 AM
Will you all throw tomatoes if I mention the Pirate's code?

Aaaarrrrrrrrrrrr
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: Amechra on August 21, 2013, 10:36:22 AM
Is... is that an aDMg post that has actual... sentence structure?

I do believe that that's one of the signs of the End Times. If you don't see me in a few days, tell my wife I said hello.

On a more "serious" note, I don't care about the FAQ; only time it's ever been of importance to me is helping me find Great Throw.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: FlaminCows on August 22, 2013, 08:12:58 AM
Is... is that an aDMg post that has actual... sentence structure?

If you think that was scary, you should see his post in the 5e Thread.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: Amechra on August 22, 2013, 08:25:57 AM
Holy. Crap.

Excuse me while I wet myself.  ;)
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: EjoThims on August 26, 2013, 04:35:48 PM
#2 because when it isn't trying to overstep its bounds, it's a great tool for clarification.

Unfortunately, by the very rules themselves, it does not actually have the ability to ever actually change the RaW.

It can only clarify which among a group of valid interpretations of the RaW were meant to be used or offer suggestions on how to houserule a situation to bring it more in line with the RaI.

Every single entry attempting anything else is to be ignored completely.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on August 27, 2013, 09:07:46 AM
Unfortunately, by the very rules themselves, it does not actually have the ability to ever actually change the RaW.
Citation needed.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: EjoThims on August 27, 2013, 09:36:22 PM
Unfortunately, by the very rules themselves, it does not actually have the ability to ever actually change the RaW.
Citation needed.

Quote from: All Core Errata
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 PC races, and the 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.

Even if you accept the FAQ as a rules source, if it in any way contradicts the primary source (such as the book the rule in question was printed in), the primary source takes precedent.

The sole exception to this is specific errata on the primary source in question, which the FAQ is not.

The FAQ, thusly, can never change rules, only clarify them.

Changing rules can only be done by errata.


Technically, this also invalidates just about all of the Rules Compendium, as it is not the primary source for most of its content, though one could make an argument from topic precedence. ;)
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on August 28, 2013, 01:35:39 AM
Uh-huh. No never mind that the FAQ is the primary source on rules interpretation and clarification or how it, very specifically, defines how rules to interact with each other. Oh and the Rule's Compendium is primary source on the rules update.

The Errata refutes this saying primary source is all that matters. As you claim that means you should ignore the FAQ and the Rules Compendium because for instance the PHB holds ultimate and absolute final authority on all matters barring the Errata.  OF course, in the PHB under Character Creation is a list of your Races on page 6, then under the Races Chapter on page 7 is says very plainly to find your Racial Ability Modifier on Table 1-1. When the Monster Manual added the Kobold as a PC Race it disagreed with those rule entries, IE a kobold cannot find his Racial Mods on Table 1-1 nor is he listed in Character Creation. And speaking of, didn't the Tome of Battle added some very nice Base Classes didn't it? Sorry, again the Character Creation section in the PHB says the Classes are defined in Chapter 3 of the PHB, which does not include the Tome of Battle's Chapter 1 list of Classes. Likewise, page 21 of the PHB agrees as it says there are 11 Classes, not 12 or more. The Warblade doesn't exist in the official rule set. These rule examples, and the dozens like them in the PHB, DMG, and MMI, hold absolute unrivaled true authority. Nothing but the Errata can contradict them and as such vast amounts of D&D's Expansions, Supplements, Adventures, and Updates are a collection of incorrect and are not officially recognized thus have no right to be discussed in a rules debate. In effect, discussions of the Duskblade or Factotum and such should be moved to the Houserule's section.

Interesting argument EjoTannis. But for some reason I just can't help but think you're wrong, or at least no one will ever give a damn to support your point without creating a double standard. Which of course is deviation from the rules and can readily be argued against. Either way, it's your can of worms to deal with.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: EjoThims on August 31, 2013, 08:33:13 PM
Just on the off chance you aren't trolling, I'll try to explain the difference between contradiction and clarification (at least as I have used them in this context).

Both can be changes to implicit function, but there is a world of difference between how they interact with what is already established.

Contradictions are statements which would make previous items untrue. In other words, directly disagreeing with what is already written. Contradictions are attempts to change explicit function.

Clarifications are additions (or even changes) which do not cause that which is already stated to become untrue. Clarifications can never change the explicit function.

For example:

If the "Shapes Handbook" states "All rectangles have four sides" and "All rectangles have four right angles"

Then the "Complete Squares" book could state "All rectangles with all four sides being equal are squares" and it would be mere clarification in establishing 'squares' as an entity in the rules and a subset of the rectangle entity.

But if it stated "Rectangles have between 3 and 5 sides" it would be a blatant contradiction.



Now, most of the FAQ contradictions aren't so simple (especially when there is also a specific versus general rule). And, honestly, I'm not going to waste my time digging up a bunch of the examples in it.

But one I can point out quickly (and no one should be surprised this is the example I remember):

Quote from: FAQ
Does the deepwarden’s Stone Warden ability (RS 105) still have a maximum Dexterity bonus to his Armor Class, and does that maximum still apply to his Constitution?
The maximum Dexterity bonus should be treated as the maximum ability bonus given by the armor, so if you were playing a deepwarden wearing full plate, you would only add 1 to your Armor Class from your Constitution.

The use of the word 'should' should key any reader off to this being a suggestion for a houserule (and it does fit the RaI). But this is a direct contradiction to what is actually printed in the ability and all other relevant text and would thusly require being houseruled.



Now, the FAQ is much better at being clear when it's pointing out a suggested houserule than the Sage articles, but it still slips up like this.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on September 01, 2013, 12:02:52 AM
So you're problem with the FAQ is a language debate. "Should" can mean the entry is a suggestion - Obama is terrible, I should have voted for the other guy - and so you refute it under the misguided concept that the entry is also incorrect.

But "Should" can also mean to indicate correctness -  the 2x4 is two it's short is should be 12" in total - and it is criticizing the improper wording. In the same regard:
Quote
Stone Warden (Ex): Beginning at 2nd level, a deepwarden knows how to use his strengths to compensate for his weaknesses. He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character’s Constitution bonus is higher. The deepwarden loses this bonus to his Armor Class whenever he would normally be denied his Dexterity bonus to AC. In such a situation, the deepwarden would still be considered flat-footed.
Let's cut the green text, it's reminder text and it does not contradict the FAQ's ruling because it does not say you are to ignore the MDB of armor.

Instead, focus on this: "He adds his Constitution bonus to AC instead of his Dexterity, if the character’s Constitution bonus is higher."
As you so delightfully pointed out. There is a word and a problem with it's usage. "Instead of" is a replacement. Let us put this in another way. Traffic lights use red for stop, yellow for a warning, and green for go. If I stated you are you use red for go instead of green. If I am at a red light and there is a sign saying no turning on red. Has this sign be altered? Should it be ignored? And more importantly who says it should be ignored? We have replaced the color we are using to denote stop & go but there is no notation that we have not removed the law that says you are not to turn right on red.

When the Deep Warden said you replace your Dex Mod with your Con Mod, it did not change any other inherent limitations of how you would add, limit, or deny your Dex-To-AC. The following text is reminder text. One of the repercussions of being a replacement is that it's still subject to effects that would deny you of your bonus. Just like another one of the repercussions would be the maximum limitation imposed by your armor or how your Touch AC is to be calculated. These effects would be filled in per handling the replacement correctly.

"But that don't make sense. Dwarves are tough, hardy people. The entry claimed you use your strength to cover your weaknesses. A Deepwarden is a tank, a stalwart defender, a linebacker!" Comes to mind right? That is a fallacy of appeal, and incorrect at that. Deepwarders are an explorers, scouts, the first line of defense not the main force. Faerun describes Dwarven cities to be huge, containing castles and fortresses. Many floored buildings and massive caverns can be found throughout the Underdark. A Deepwarden would not seek to wear unyielding metal but light mobile armor that can be worn when scaling walls of these empty massive caverns or deep ravines. And speaking of agility, look at the rest of the Deepward's abilities. His obtains Swift Tracker to maintain his speed while tracking down possible threats and Uncanny Dodge. Illogically his Constitution Modifier is noted in parenthesis (there again as a reminder) to apply, how do you truly explain this in game? You don't, not any more than an agility limit shouldn't apply to an endurance related trait. It is a continued repercussion of the ideals that a Deepwarden seeks to be nimple and the unique sell point of a Con-instead-of-Dex feature. This fallacy of appeal has nothing to grab onto, the Deepwarden was never intended to be wearing full-mountain plate armor. In fact, the build example wears nothing more than a +1 chain shirt, which is light armor.

So what you have is no real argument that the FAQ is incorrect. The FAQ is adding clarification to already presented rules, not contradicting them. The FAQ is following the example of intent laid out within the class. The FAQ correctly interprets proper rule alterations and inheritance of replacement. Dubbing incorrect is of course a mistake on your part, you have incorrectly read the rules and incorrectly interpreted them. Honestly, it's a rather small mistake and commonly happens. So much in fact that WotC is aware that this problem happens often and sought to provided a resource to clarify possible mistakes. The guy with the best credentials willing to manage this resource was put in charge. Would you in turn spit on his face and deny WotC's right to create and mange their D&D product as they see fit. Then somehow, you consider your self to be the unpaid official and final editor of WotC's content. Not as a DM where in your game you create an entire world seeking to provide a fun adventure for your players and you. But as the editor in chief that decrees which books should or should not carry WotC's seal of approval, and all others must adhere to your demands. All because you cannot admit you were wrong? Would you really, knowingly, seek to be that bad of a person?

Think about this post. I mean it really. Don't post today, don't post tomorrow. Post after you've really given things thought and done some soul searching. Is the FAQ really incorrect, or have you heard bad things and assumed so? Was it really wrong on Deepwarden, or as SorO pointed out instead of does not alienate dependencies? Is the so called flaws see really and truly stand out, or do they blend into the backdrop of imperfections and fuck ups that D&D has included in every single supplement? Would you truly disregard the RC because intended to update the rules and providing clarification a bad thing? And if not, why are you really strictly drawing the line at the FAQ? You cannot blame customer service because that is a double edged lie into it's self, and one that I'd happily explain again if you need. I rather like the calm level headed approach we've got going on.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: wotmaniac on September 01, 2013, 04:16:28 AM
Technically, this also invalidates just about all of the Rules Compendium, as it is not the primary source for most of its content, though one could make an argument from topic precedence. ;)

As much as I hate doing this ('cause I'm in general agreement with the main thrust of your position), I do feel compelled to point this out:
Quote from: Rules Compendium
Introduction
The book you hold in your hands is the definitive guide for how to play the 3.5 revision of the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Roleplaying Game. Years in the making, it gathers resources from a wide variety of supplements, rules errata, and rules clarifications to provide an authoritative guide for playing the D&D game. It updates and elucidates the rules, as well as expanding on them in ways that make it more fun and easier to play. When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence.

It is what it is.
I think that the differences between Core and Rules Compendium are sometimes a bit circumspect (due to some of the methodology involved with compiling the RC).  Because of that, I'm very uncomfortable with that line from RC; but as far as "RAW" goes, ..... :shrug

Now, the FAQ is much better at being clear when it's pointing out a suggested houserule than the Sage articles, but it still slips up like this.
FAQ is drawn from Sage articles and CustServ.
Just sayin'.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: linklord231 on September 01, 2013, 04:50:05 AM
The Deepwarden example isn't the best one, because it could be construed as a clarification or even a suggested houserule, rather than a rules change.  But how do you reconcile, say, the Arcane Thesis FAQ entry with the PHB2 errata?

Quote from: PHB2 errata
Page 74– Arcane Thesis [Substitution]
Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).

Quote from: FAQ
If a character with Arcane Thesis (PH2 74) applies multiple metamagic feats to the chosen spell, is the spell’s slot reduced by one level, or by one level per metamagic feat applied?
Arcane Thesis reduces the total spell level of a metamagic affected spell by one, regardless of the number of metamagic feats applied. An empowered (+2 levels), still (+1 level), silent (+1 level) fireball would be 6th level.

The version of the FAQ this was taken from was published 6/30/08, while the PHB2 errata was published 10/16/07 - since the FAQ ruling came after the PHB2 errata, it represents a direct contradiction of rules already in place and cannot be seen as a "clarification". 

Edit:  I think WotC has a problem with saying "should" when they mean "shall".  It happens rather often.  "Should" can be taken as giving advice, but could also be a command.  Both are grammatically correct.  "Shall" can only be a command. 
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: wotmaniac on September 01, 2013, 05:49:04 AM
Quote from: PHB2 errata
Page 74– Arcane Thesis [Substitution]
Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).

Quote from: FAQ
If a character with Arcane Thesis (PH2 74) applies multiple metamagic feats to the chosen spell, is the spell’s slot reduced by one level, or by one level per metamagic feat applied?
Arcane Thesis reduces the total spell level of a metamagic affected spell by one, regardless of the number of metamagic feats applied. An empowered (+2 levels), still (+1 level), silent (+1 level) fireball would be 6th level.

The version of the FAQ this was taken from was published 6/30/08, while the PHB2 errata was published 10/16/07 - since the FAQ ruling came after the PHB2 errata, it represents a direct contradiction of rules already in place and cannot be seen as a "clarification". 

Edit:  I think WotC has a problem with saying "should" when they mean "shall".  It happens rather often.  "Should" can be taken as giving advice, but could also be a command.  Both are grammatically correct.  "Shall" can only be a command. 
This would be yet another clear example where the FAQ is object wrong.  Full stop.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on September 01, 2013, 12:57:29 PM
The Deepwarden example isn't the best one, because it could be construed as a clarification or even a suggested houserule, rather than a rules change.  But how do you reconcile, say, the Arcane Thesis FAQ entry with the PHB2 errata?
Ahh the Arcane Thesis entry.

Believe it or not I love this one. It's the easiest one to prove the FAQ is correct on. Let's build all the points here in a row.

Section 1
Quote from: Complete Mage Errata
Page 74– Arcane Thesis [Substitution] Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).
Page 74 – Arcane Thesis [Omission] Add the following text to the end of the “Benefit” section: “A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat.”
And right off the bat we have a problem. Do you see it?
Quote
Should read, When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell
Now look at all the other Errata entries. Someone made a costly grammatical mistake that cost them "RAW" and lost the argument. But we both know I tend to disregard that and if it's not enough for me, then I continue on. But remember that misplaced end quotation mark the next time you want to have a "RAW" discussion.

Section 2
Post-Errata Arcane Thesis now reads like this
Quote
Choose one arcane spell that you can cast to be your thesis spell. When casting that spell, you do so at +2 caster level. When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal. Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3). A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat.
Except now we have another problem. Do you see it?
"When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell to that spell, the enhanced spell uses up a spell slot one level lower than normal."
When you apply multiple Feats the Spell it's self uses a spell slot one level lower than normal. Not the cost of applying the Metamagic Feat is reduced by one, not each time you apply a Metamagic Feat the Spell uses a lower slot, but multiple on singular equals one. Arcane Thesis reduces the Spell's Cost by one, not the Metamagic.

And even when attempting to purposely interpret this in another way you reach a dead end. For instance, let's pose that you apply Metamagic Feats one at a time and Arcane Thesis is intended to trigger on each application right? For instance; Fireball + Empower could triggers Arcane Thesis's text and reduces the level by one. Now if you applied Maximize it should trigger again or ((Fireball+Empower & Thesis)+Maximize & Thesis) right? Well no. Run this logic through a parallel arguments. If a Cleric with Augment Healing were to recast one of his Spells (such as using spelltheift or greater anyspell(mage's lubrication)) would the Spell heal +4 HP per Spell level? If you attack multiple times per round, dose Weapon Focus continue to provide a +1 Bonus to your previous Attack Rolls? No. D&D does not work like that. Arcane Thesis is applied once to the enhanced spell, not multiple times.

The Example text disagrees with the rules text. The Example is incorrect.

Section 3
So why are we still humoring things? Because the example text says other wise. No, the updated example text says otherwise. There is an absolute emphasis on the updated part, this is how the Example text is supposed to be. So RAW discussions aside, intent by the Errata Author is this. And you'd almost have me right here. In fact, I think everyone sees the Errata and comes to the same conclusion, is it how it's supposed to work, even if the rules disagree with it. Kind of like Dragon Disciple or Ur-Priest. And you know what, I cannot find any faults with the idea, I do however have beefs with it's usage.

Example text's function is to clarify the rules, but this is also the FAQ's dedicated role. The FAQ is RAI, the official RAI, plus whatever else it does. But it's undebatable that it is is meant for rule clarification and interpretation and provided the newest update. So no, from a D&D as a whole stand point, Arcane Thesis is not intended to work that way.

Bonus Section!
Ahh the best part. RAW, Intent, the actual wording, everything is in line with the FAQ. Is there any hang ups in sight? Sure. As Ejo has explained things Primary Source is the absolute final authority and updates don't matter. Boy that's a tough one isn't it? I guess I'll go with my welcome to the stone age of Core Only and retire because Arcane Thesis would be one such house rule ;)

Well, to that I do have one last mention. Since at least the MM3's Errata (dated 06-29-06) the Errata wordings has been altered.
Quote from: Player's Hondbook II Errata
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 a table or character's statistics block) is incorrect. Exceptions to the rule will be called out specifically.
The PHBII's Errata uses this updated introduction and this type of entry does not prohibit rule updating. Primary source is intended to per product level. As in CS's rules can trump CS's examples but if CM wants to trump the CC, then the CM must approach matters that when regarding D&D as the product, CM's entry would be seen as trumping source. Like the FAQ does with it's entries.

Examples would be Complete Arcane's Weaponlike Spells entry that altered several things that FAQ had to cover before it came out. How several books updated Quicken Spell after explaining what Swift & Immediate Actions. How the ToB contains an updated section of Incorporeal Rules meant to replace the ones that came before. Even the FAQ's ruling that touching an illusion discharges a Touch Spell. These things may (or may not) have contradicted the PHB's claim on primary source but all four of those example, yes the FAQ included, made an appearance on the Rule's Compendium and we know what that was intended to be. Updates, no matter what they come from, trump Errata.

Oh crap, they never went back and changed the PHB's Errata's Introduction did they?
Guess stone age it is.  :P

Edit - I got my CS/CMs mixed up. Couple spell checks too.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: RobbyPants on September 05, 2013, 07:28:03 AM
I voted 5 (the hate vote). While I think there are plenty of good rulings in the FAQ, I don't know which are good and which are bad until I research the answer to vet it. If I have to do a bunch of research to figure out if the answer is any good, then it's not a good resource for providing answers; I could have just researched my own question.

I prefer asking rules questions here. There are enough knowledgeable people that someone is bound to remember some esoteric rule that confirms or contradicts my initial assumptions.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: ImperatorK on September 07, 2013, 05:16:08 PM
I voted for the 3rd option. For me FAQ isn't RAW. It might be helpful but it never overrules my own opinion (if I have one). I value FAQs on the same level as opinions of some of the more knowledgeable and helpful people on this boards, but they're still just opinions.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: Bard on September 08, 2013, 07:16:34 PM
uhm I voted #2, but I thought the OP was referring to the Sage's advice and similar, I guess it should have been #3 then.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: ImperatorK on September 09, 2013, 04:34:29 AM
You can remove vote and vote again.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: Bard on September 09, 2013, 06:38:33 AM
You can remove vote and vote again.

Thanks :D
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: EjoThims on September 24, 2013, 02:18:41 AM
"Should" can mean the entry is a suggestion

Indeed. And I even called it out as such. "The use of the word 'should' should key any reader off to this being a suggestion for a houserule (and it does fit the RaI)."

In that specific example, I was lamenting that there was no clearer indication than that one word that it was suggesting a houserule, since it was offering a direct contradiction to the originally printed rules.

But I'll not go further into that topic. If you want to dredge it up elsewhere, be my guest, but I have already spoken circles around any attempt to insert additional rules into that text and will not waste time repeating myself (any more than I already have in the past).

Would you truly disregard the RC because intended to update the rules and providing clarification a bad thing?

Updating the rules and providing clarification is not a bad thing at all. Violating your own standards on the structure of such clarification at the same time as offering clarification on open source material in a non open source book, that's a different matter.

But even then, I don't hate the RC. I was just pointing out the complete silliness of the fact that, technically, at face value, it cannot, by the very rules it supports, do what it sets out to do - even with it's caveat at the beginning.

FAQ is drawn from Sage articles and CustServ.

I know. Usually they are the most accurate representations of the articles or have at least been a bit cleaned up from the CustServ responses. Though there are parts I wish they had cleaned far more.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on November 14, 2015, 11:00:08 AM
I came across this FAQ discussion elsewhere in case later readers thought the thread was only representative of one disccussion. And I did vote. It just took me a while to be convinced of the boards' consensus.

Quote from: Noldor old post at gitp
I'm sorry, I am a little confused. Is the text I posted about arcane thesis incorrect? I was relatively certain that that was how it worked. if so, how does it, in fact, work?
The text you posted was correct, it's just that with the passing of years and the lack of timestamps, the progression of events has been a bit obscured:

  • PHB2 was published in May '06. Among other things, people notice Arcane Thesis and theorize how it can be used with loads of metamagic at once.
  • In reaction to some particularly abusive builds, Customer Service decides to make a stealth nerf to the feat. By this point The Sage had generally become a mouthpiece for this sort of thing, so of course it gets published as a "question" and gets tossed in the FAQ. (jaybird posted this text.)
  • Perhaps annoyed at bureaucratic meddling, PHB2's own designers explicitly define and correct how the feat worked in the errata published in October '07. As above, it contradicts the FAQ and (being the primary rules source) has precedent. (Everyone else who posted text, posted this text.)


This method of using the FAQ to stealthily alter or tweak the rules was one of the two things that got people so riled up over its use in the first place. (The other was the inconsistency of responses you could produce from CustServ by rewording the question.) It smacked of intellectual dishonesty to use a side channel not intended for this purpose (Sage responses and the FAQ), especially when there was a separate channel that was intended for this kind of thing (errata documents).

'Course, while WotC learned their lesson from this (monthly updates!) in 4E...Paizo's still had its share of like SNAFUs (such as Monk flurry).

Quote from: Venger
Quote from: jaybird
Huh, interesting...okay. So the PHB2 errata takes priority over the PHB FAQ, then?
Yes. Primary source always trumps a secondary source (text trumps table or sample character, for example) the FAQ is a secondary source, whereas errata are primary, so go with errata, which is essentially, subtract 1 from every metamagic lvl adjuster you apply to the spell.

Quote from: mattie_p
Quote from: hollywippet
Quote from: roguenewb
As the saying goes, FAQs aren't RAW. My understanding is that if FAQ changes the functionality of something (which techincally it shouldn't) then it's not official, just like the Sage's answers aren't RAW.
Where exactly is this spelled out?
It is at the start of pretty much every posted errata:

Quote from: Errata Rule: Primary Sources
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. Note: The most
recent updates are shaded like this.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you (now with -3% condesending text!)
Post by: SorO_Lost on November 15, 2015, 11:31:14 AM
Quote from: mattie_p
Quote from: hollywippet
Quote from: roguenewb
As the saying goes, FAQs aren't RAW. My understanding is that if FAQ changes the functionality of something (which techincally it shouldn't) then it's not official, just like the Sage's answers aren't RAW.
Where exactly is this spelled out?
It is at the start of pretty much every posted errata:
*sighs*

Quote from: Me, just now using the newer page's listed of 3.5 Errata
ErrataRelease Date*Errata Text
Dungeon Master's Guide v.3.503/12/2004v1.0
Player's Guide to Faerûn07/23/2004None
Complete Divine09/24/2004v2.0
Planar Handbook11/26/2004v2.0
Serpent Kingdom11/30/2004v2.1
Shadows of the Last War12/03/20042.0 (w/o parenthesis)
Libris Mortis02/11/2005None
Complete Arcane03/16/2005v2.0
Complete Warrior07/26/2005v2.0
Complete Adventurer08/03/2005v2.0
Player's Handbook v.3.5**02/16/2006v1.0
Monster Manual v.3.5**02/16/2006v1.0
Book of Exalted Deeds02/16/2006v1.0
Eberron Campaign Setting**02/16/2006v2.0
Expanded Psionics Handbook**02/16/2006v2.2
Frostburn02/16/2006v1.0
Sharn: City of Towers**02/16/2006v2.0
Unapproachable East02/16/2006v1.0
Tome of Magic03/28/2006v1.1
Power of Faerûn05/31/2006None
Monster Manual 306/29/2006v2.0
Release of the Rules Compendium (07-16-2007 per Amazon)
Player's Handbook 210/16/2007v2.0
Spell Compendium10/23/2007v2.0
Complete Mage11/09/2007v2.0
Complete Champion09/24/2008None
Complete Scoundrel09/24/2008None
Magic Item Compendium09/24/2008None
Tome of Battle***09/24/2008v2.0
*Date is per entry on the webpage, some files say otherwise.
**Updated with new entries, header was not updated & original release date unknown.
***It's contains several entries from Complete Mage's Errata.

(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
(click to show/hide)
Entry Usage (rounded fractions): 28 entries, 6 v1.0 (21%), 1 v1.1 (3%), 14 v2.0 (50%), 1 v2.1 (3%), 1 2.2 (3%), 6 None (21%).
No-Entry breakdown: Pre-RC 21 entries, 18 (85%) / 3 (14%), post 8 entries, 5 (62%) & 3 (24%).
It'd appear the claim presented an fact is really just the minority, tied with no notation at all in usage, and the extreme interpretation that nothing but the original source matters, which is refuted by over 90 supplement books to be a lie, isn't the message the Errata is trying to tell you.

And the claim is fully outdated by both the last-used v2.0 entry and by the Rules Compendium. Which you should already know specially since I've been reminding you about the RC for almost eight years now, because some of us actually have read the Errata instead of parroting only the things found on forums that agree with an already established opinion.

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/GD6qtc2_AQA/sddefault.jpg)
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: phaedrusxy on November 15, 2015, 04:45:51 PM
WTF... you guys have way too much free time.  :lmao
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you (now with -3% condesending text!)
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on November 15, 2015, 05:28:10 PM
*sighs*
Feel free to start all of your posts this way. I immediately start reading your logical rebuttal rather than trying to convince myself to ignore somethings snarky.

Quote
No-Entry breakdown: Pre-RC 21 entries, 18 (85%) / 3 (14%), post 8 entries, 5 (62%) & 3 (24%).
It would appear that the v1 and v2 are just restating each other with different emphasis. The skills emphasis in 2.2 seems like a 'try not to take the table-text thing too literally guys' response.

Quote
It'd appear the claim presented an fact is really just ... the extreme interpretation that nothing but the original source matters
Hmm. That's not what I thought they were saying, but I might be misinterpreting.

Basically, as snazzy as that research is, I'm not sure the differences are totally overwriting "versions" rather than, say slight variations on the same theme. Now if they posted an errata on the errata, (or a fully released errata that subsequently mentioned the previous errata)... There are some books that have multiple errata. Do any of them say "disregard that first errata's primary source text paragraph. Use this one instead"?
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you (now with +9% condesending text!)
Post by: SorO_Lost on November 19, 2015, 11:11:26 AM
*sighs*
Feel free to start all of your posts this way. I immediately start reading your logical rebuttal rather than trying to convince myself to ignore somethings snarky.
You can read it that way if you like. I image it more as a professor's sigh upon realizing that this is his ninth year of dealing with college senors that walk into his class thinking we only use 10% of our brains.

Aka, It's the sigh of exasperation over how people still humor a subject.

Do any of them say "disregard that first errata's primary source text paragraph. Use this one instead"?
Quote from: RC
When a preexisting core book or supplement differs with the rules herein, Rules Compendium is meant to take precedence. If you have a question on how to play D&D at the table, this book is meant to answer that question.
Quote from: RC
ORDER OF RULES APPLICATION
The D&D game assumes a specific order of rules application: General to specific to exception. A general rule is a basic guideline, but a more specific rule takes precedence when applied to the same activity. For instance, a monster description is more specific than any general rule about monsters, so the description takes precedence. An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific). The Improved Disarm feat, for instance, provides an exception to the rule that an attacker provokes an attack of opportunity from the defender he’s trying to disarm (see Disarm, page 45).
Through to be honest, the RC's entry is really just a better explained copy of the point the Errara was trying to get across. Like in a single given book the specific entry of something trumps the table or short summery of it. And like when it comes to the basic general rules on Spells check the RC (formally the PHB), or really any up to date rules source relevant to the topic, instead of something that has nothing to do with it like the Monster Manual on Spells or whatever Magic Fang has to say about how Unarmed Strike actually works.

Except the RC and later Errata entries are not as broad worded allowing complete fucktards to totally misread things to illogically make a really bad point. See, what this entire thread honesty boils down to is if you are presented with two interpretations and enter a debate about them, then someone comes along with official game rules from an official rule source published by the official creators of the game on the official website and says you're wrong. How should you respond?

And people like you think an ad-hominem attack over the competency of WotC's "Sage" or "CustService" is a perfectly valid reason to discredit a rules source and ignore it. Overlooking the fact that not a single CustService entry can actually be proven to be from them opposed to some guy just claiming they did (which is really odd when you think about it). You are not training new people to critically think, you are not training them to read the rules or ask for opinions, you are encouraging them to bitch their way to success on assumption that they are always right and merely need to scream loud enough to prove it no matter how self defeating or illogical the outcome is.

Like the silly notation of Primary Source, which doesn't actually imply the FAQ or even the Miniature's Handbook can't update the rules through it's often claimed as such (so swift actions don't exist, good luck). In all actually the Errata really claims is that whatever is primary leads. So for example an entry that updates the old rules would become the primary entry on the updated rules (*headexplodes*). The idea that nothing can trump the original first-printed entry purely stems from misreading the example text that mentions checking the PHB instead of the DMG for Spells, designating the PHB as the primary source, that was wrote back when there was only three books to begin with. Now I know you don't believe me so go ahead and take the moment to scroll up and check. v1.1 is just v1.0 minus the example and both of them without the example text don't actually support this bad interpretation,the concept is entirely based on focused on the example and requires you to not accept any other explanation WotC has offered.

Alternatively you could attempt to maneuver some other excuse, I can't really cover them all in one post and I really don't feel like covering a bunch either. But maybe you want to create the stance that a rule's source must declare it's self, ie Errata does and the FAQ does not, as your method to ignore one but not another. Well Eberron Campaign Setting didn't say as much either so by that definition that's not a rules source either and that's not the only line of products you've claimed at invalid. As a second shout, or really the third counting the actual Errata text, maybe you want to assert that the FAQ is just a guideline and play that rule 0 card. Well all the rules are a guideline when you get down to it and we have a term when you deviate from them and it's called "houserules", so is the debate taking place in the official "guidelines" or your houserules? And so on for pretty much every self-defending excuse you can think of, the repercussions of drawing a bad line in the sand to exclude one thing causes your house of cards to topple because when you've built it out of fallacies there is always a way to prove how it's illogical it is or how stupid it can appear to someone else.

And all the while I'm just sitting here wondering why everyone has to be a self-entitled hateful dbag slinging bullshit about how they can ignore something that proves them wrong. And the funny thing is if you ask them why or point out any problems in their logic, they look at you like you're mad for thinking such and complain about how attacking or belittling them doesn't invalidate their points because the irony of their situation created by their double standards is totally lost to them. To them they totally have a misinterpreted over-empathized and outdated example as proof they are right and to them that's all that matters.

And to them I'm the crazy one totally wrapped up in my BS theories about what I think common sense is, and the only thing you've "read" out of this entire post is how hypocritical I am to yell profanities at you even as I claim you shouldn't be a dbag and how you think I'm saying ignore the Errata entry entirely. So as you already are, pay no nevermind to trying to understand the idea that's being poorly said and focus on that plan to scream about how you're already right in whatever you are thinking about now.

I honestly couldn't expect anything less, through for some reason I often do.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on November 27, 2015, 02:04:29 PM
Wow that was a really good post.  :clap It got very psychological toward the end. I was going to ask for something, but I know what your answer is going to be (and I agree with your line of logic on it).

I assure you this question is related: do you remember that WotC page that said multiple half-dragon templates on the same creature was legal? The community simply shook its head at that. Do you agree with it, in a vaccuum, and then do your above requirements change your acceptance of that page?
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on November 28, 2015, 12:34:20 AM
do you remember that WotC page that said multiple half-dragon templates on the same creature was legal?
Well crap, at around midnight today I misread that.

I was going to on about how Elite Opponent's "Creatures that Cannot Be" isn't a point but meh. I really can't rub two brain cells together with this bs work schedule. So tell you what, how about you actually spend more than one tenth of a second and actually google your so called WotC "page" (can't even call it a ruling eh?) for me that claims you can stack the same Template more than once, because nothing is really said in the rules one way or another forcing most people to use the text in the Evolved Undead Template as the only known official text, before I run off down the wrong road.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: Gazzien on November 28, 2015, 04:31:31 AM
do you remember that WotC page that said multiple half-dragon templates on the same creature was legal?
Well crap, at around midnight today I misread that.

I was going to on about how Elite Opponent's "Creatures that Cannot Be" isn't a point but meh. I really can't rub two brain cells together with this bs work schedule. So tell you what, how about you actually spend more than one tenth of a second and actually google your so called WotC "page" (can't even call it a ruling eh?) for me that claims you can stack the same Template more than once, because nothing is really said in the rules one way or another forcing most people to use the text in the Evolved Undead Template as the only known official text, before I run off down the wrong road.
I remember reading this article, I believe it mentioned add Multi-Headed (or perhaps Chimeric?) to a hydra or a chimera. It was a while ago.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on November 28, 2015, 12:42:50 PM
Yep, so it was Elite Opponents.

The problem with the EO articles is they frequently intentionally break legality for the hell of it. Like by quoting out of context we can produce this.
Quote
You can add a template more than once to the same creature as long as it continues to qualify.
Seems pretty straightforward right? You can add the same Template more than once, except well it never used the word "same".

Let's read on!
Quote
Chimeric Chimera
Okay, so applying the chimeric template from Monster Manual II to a chimera may seem odd, but it's perfectly legal. Editor's Note: “Chimeric” is a template that can be added to any Mediumsize, Large, or Huge animal, beast (a 3.0 depreciated type often updated to magical beast), or vermin. You can add a template more than once to the same creature as long as it continues to qualify. Some serious magical genetic experimentation is required, so this might well be a unique creature.

Since the sample chimeric creature uses a magical beast as the base creature, the template must apply to magical beasts. Applying the chimeric template once to a chimera results in a creature with two goat heads, two dragon heads, and a lion head. Then use of the multiheaded template to add three dragon heads (you get to choose if the base creature has more than one head of different types) gives us an eight-headed creature with five dragon heads, two goat heads, and a lion head (kind of like a mutated aspect of Tiamat). The lion head is in charge, though the other heads offer opinions and try to assert authority from time to time. The dragon heads span the evil chromatic types for interest; if you're a purist you can give it four green heads and a red head.

The body looks like that of a chimera, and the creature fights like a chimera, but when it uses its breath weapon, all five dragon heads breathe at the same time.
Well, if alludes to it a little better by mentioning "once" but you'll note he doesn't actually apply the same Template twice. Instead he uselessly talks about double Temples and breeding in the same breath and then goes a known legal direction after that.

And for reference.
Quote from: From the same article
Anarchic-Axiomatic Dark Unicorn
This creature is technically illegal, unless you split hairs (and it probably still is). The rationale is that a two-headed creature has two brains and two personalities, so each head could have a different template applied to it. Thus, let's see what a two-headed unicorn with opposite alignment-based templates looks like. I am not sure how to breed one of these, and I don't want to know (so don't tell me). Maybe it is a magically fused creature, but more likely it was created by some deities for a specific purpose. Illegal or not, it's fun.
And that's pretty much what I mean in a nut shell. EO publishers love to break legality, often noting it, but they really don't care if their newest creation is legal or not as long as it sounds/looks cool.

Oh and btw, the Multiheaded Template can add +1~+29 heads on application.

P.S. If you're wanting to resolve if you can stack the same Template more than once. For me, EO's information is causation of someone taking the rules and trying to produce something cool with them. Sort of like if I were to post a Half-Dragon Minotaur, if I did it right it is 100% legal first person material to use in your games even through I am not a D&D book author. The Evolved Undead Template sits higher up on the totem to me. Through it's notation is not part of the base rules as you'd expect so it's possible to override it if you can find something better. The question becomes, can you? And if not, well you have an answer don't you?
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on November 28, 2015, 09:34:55 PM
Hmm. It was an EO article. But it was about stacking multiple half-dragon templates.

All my googling found is this: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20070401a which is relevant (and mentions the errata), but still not the right one.  :-\
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on November 28, 2015, 11:25:26 PM
Hmm. It was an EO article. But it was about stacking multiple half-dragon templates.

All my googling found is this: http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/eo/20070401a which is relevant (and mentions the errata), but still not the right one.  :-\
Hardly relevant unless you're making a point about how EO deviates from the rules. Like as the title, header and the end part of the sentence all say the Half-Dragon Dragon is illegal.

But the matter isn't as straight foreward as that. First of all, does RotD.Nonhumanoid_Dragon-Descended.Nonhumanoid_Half-Dragon present it's self as a rule's update, clarification, reprinting, or anything other than a footnote?

Now consider RotD, like most Supplements tells you that the details are in other books under What You Need to Play then on Page 55 it tells you the rules for Half-Dragon are in the MM1 pg 175 with additional options found in this book. The Half-Dragon Template's entry certainly is primary source on it's own entry and RotD certainly points to it as such, so do you really consider RotD to rewrite things?

And if you do, or even if you don't, that's fine really. But mindful that the FAQ already contains an older entry that observes that you technically can through they should be very rare on the DM's end. And there is a Half-Dragon Dragon in Faerun named Garnetallisar tagged as "unique" in Dragons of Faerun's role call. Meaning it's appeared in other novels/supplements, through in one such novel he's a 3-way split which is mechanically nerfed to a once-applied Half-Dragon Template (material for a template stacking debate?). The more accurate answer really isn't a binary yes/no, but rather generally no but saying yes to create a unique creature isn't a wrong answer and perfectly allowed.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: linklord231 on November 29, 2015, 02:20:29 AM
That brings up an interesting discussion, and circles back to the topic at hand: 
If we take it as read that RotD disallows half-dragon dragons, how do you justify that with the FAQ entry saying that you can have half-dragon dragons?  Or, more generally, if the FAQ explicitly disagrees with something that the books say, which is correct? 
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: awaken_D_M_golem on November 29, 2015, 02:46:01 PM
(googles)

They did ask themselves the 2 Half-Dragons question here:
" ... Would two different half-dragon templates be applied to the offspring? ... "
http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ps/20060111a
(scroll down to the shark map)
but neither interviewee answered that exact question.


iirc old C.O. had a discussion about Dragon Disciple + Half Dragon
after that article, and pretty much decided it WAS legal before
even though no one did it because after-the-fact, and no one did
it after, because contradiction.

I don't remember how the super mecha T.O. effigy got multiple templates.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on November 29, 2015, 04:24:26 PM
Or, more generally, if the FAQ explicitly disagrees with something that the books say, which is correct?
In my experience the FAQ really doesn't disagree with the rules. Almost fifteen years of listening to the bitching and arguing and when it comes down to the FAQ is typically one guy claiming the FAQ is wrong because it disagrees with his opinion of how things are supposed to be read.
Fallacy of quoting out of context (contextomy) – refers to the selective excerpting of words from their original context in a way that distorts the source's intended meaning.

Like take Arcane Thesis, for some I suspect that means the entire thing is wrong.
False attribution – an advocate appeals to an irrelevant, unqualified, unidentified, biased or fabricated source in support of an argument.
But you should really read the entry.
Quote
Page 74– Arcane Thesis [Substitution]
Should read, “When you apply any metamagic feats other than Heighten Spell” Thus if you were to prepare an empowered maximized magic missile (assuming magic missile is the spell you choose for your Arcane Thesis), it would be prepared as a 4th level spell (+1 level for empowered, down from +2; and +2 levels for maximized, down from +3).
Page 74 – Arcane Thesis [Omission]
Add the following text to the end of the “Benefit” section: “A spell cannot be reduced to below its original level with the use of this feat.”
Here's a hint, where to those quotation marks fall?

(click to show/hide)

And let me add that this point is relatively trivial in the long run. Ultimately no book is perfect and often contains several blatant errors, grossly abnormalities, or contradicting text. Like consider the header changes on Errata, entry on Thesis, or Tome of Battle's release, the Errata is just as fundamentally flawed as any other line of documentation (technically more so than many others, dumb tob errata...). It is the DM's job to use common sense, his knowledge of the rules, a sense of fun, and real world knowledge to adjudicate things (RC pg5). On the forum we can easily help with the knowledge of the rules and even give advice on the other three. But only if you're open to learning and listening to the other sources available to you instead of shutting down. Seek to understand why before asserting the does and arguing about it.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on December 05, 2015, 11:37:48 PM
Er. Just to be clear, no one has posted the article I was referring to (nor have I found it on the webz)

I did however, see it recently when cleaning out things I wasn't going to keep on my HDD. Go figure.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: linklord231 on December 06, 2015, 04:56:20 AM
Or, more generally, if the FAQ explicitly disagrees with something that the books say, which is correct?
In my experience the FAQ really doesn't disagree with the rules.

I just gave an example of a time where it does. 

If we take it as read that RotD disallows half-dragon dragons, how do you justify that with the FAQ entry saying that you can have half-dragon dragons?

Alternatively, for an example of the FAQ contradicting itself, on pg 30 it says that losing a prerequisite for a prestige class causes you to lose all class feature for that PrC, but on page 6 it says that a Warforged Juggernaut/Reforged keeps its class features despite losing one of the prereqs for Warforged Juggernaut. 
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: SorO_Lost on December 06, 2015, 03:52:28 PM
(click to show/hide)
Link you do realize much of what you mentioned was already covered right? Well probably not because you also missed the one error != ignoreall and the whole seek to understand part. So I guess, since this thread has been revamped into SorO's educational moments, let me also turn your post into something better than argumentative ignorance.

The FAQ, as I've point out before is not a causation of RAW but the specific ruling of interactions. The prime difference here is that when you think the FAQ has no power to alter the rules then 3 & 3 equaling 6 is the only thing you think it can say, however the FAQ has the power to say that 3 & 3 could be 6 (3+3), 9 (3x3), 1 (3÷3), 0 (3-3) even 28 (3^3+1) if so wanted and you need to approach things with the question of why.

So let's start somewhere else, Dragon Disciple & Ur-Priest. Are they an oxymoron, do they invalidate them selves, and how should you handle them on the tabletop? First, let us go to the perceived problem and take an actual look at it instead of assuming that we "know" it off the top of our head.
Quote from: CW 16
Meeting Class Requirements: It's possible for a character to take levels in a prestige class and later be in a position where the character no longer qualifies to be a member of the class. An alignment change, levels lost because of character death, or the loss of a magic item that granted an important ability are examples of events that can make a character ineligible to advance farther in a prestige class.

If a character no longer meets the requirements for a prestige class, he or she loses the benefit of any class features or other special abilities granted by the class. The character retains Hit Dice gained from advancing in the class as well as any improvements to base attack bonus and base save bonuses that the class provided.
A couple things stand out, the passage implies that the actual taking of a level of a PrC wouldn't invalidate you, only later actions do, and invalidation example aims for willingly or unwillingly sold off your Alignment/MacGruffin for something else.

Now examples really are not good enough to count as rules text but remember examples can be used as proof of intent. So there is nothing in the first paragraph that suggests a PrC's granted Class Features can actually make you exempt and it's suggestive otherwise, it's only in the broad strokes of the second paragraph that we include them. So not to fall into the fallacy of "Begging the Question" here or assume we should just mark things as a rule oddity and move on, let's do a little research into the subject.

FAQ 30-31 cover an Alignment change invalidation and adds how to handle Skill Points and a couple other entries reference Soulmeld/Item loss invalidates which are already strongly quantified. There is a bit that basically boils down to items cannot meet Spellcasting Requirements but that stems from CAr's more detailed entries and Ask Wizard's ambiguity clarification (link (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20060417a)). And then you hit page 6.

While much of the FAQ's entry on page 6 follows the standard expectation, Reforged has no requirements, immunity trumps +/- math, etc. it says this.
Quote from: FAQ pg6
If the character already had one or more levels in warforged juggernaut before reaching 3rd level as a reforged, he would retain all warforged juggernaut class features (even the armor spikes gained at 1st level, since these aren’t the result of a warforged feat) but could not gain any additional levels in the prestige class.
This line supports an interpretation that there are things that should, or should not, be used to determine what invalidates you. More specifically, PrC levels should not invalidate PrC requirements.

Again, it's not that the FAQ is running contrary to the rules. Rather we've created an assumption of meaning that was arbitrarily given to CW, followed where it takes us, and arrived at a disagreement between two rule sources just by trying to use Complete Warrior and either Complete Divine or the DMG together (wouldn't you love an errata>all discussion now?). We're attempting to resolve this issue by clarifying our understanding. The FAQ in turn doesn't disagree with the full text, only the interpretation brought up by a partial second-paragraph-only quote. The real role the FAQ is playing here is giving precedence to support an interpretation that is already implied and used in the rule structure. Even through you may not think it is implied as strongly as another or not.

And that interpretation's outcome also happens to agree with the intended usage of more than one PrC should be allowed to work without invalidating it's self as well as the FAQ which also hardline much like CW but only in certain instances. What that interpretation is completing against is what amounts to be "the more popular one" (aka your interpretation) that causes collateral exceptions elsewhere in the rule structure. And this also directly calls back to what I've been saying for the last month about things, and Link you played the perfect part of ignorant idiot posting what can subjective seen as a "very stupid" rebuttal with a very weak stance that requires additional houserules to patch your rulings. Because you are so strongly willing to argue a point you blindly rushed into the intersection even as the warning lights and dinging sounds try to help reverse natural selection and you missed the entire conversation about the point.
Title: Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
Post by: PlzBreakMyCampaign on March 13, 2016, 03:17:24 PM
Aw be nice to Linklord. He was just asking about various examples.

Still, I think you are right that CW16 made the mistake of using examples as rules (ie: only these and similar circumstances count for this rule: alignment, item loss, etc. Therefore class abilities are exempt). You were very thorough in explaining it.