Poll

How much do you like the FAQ? How canon do you consider it?

I love the FAQ! It is central to the most holy RAW! It must not be defiled! Without it, there would be ...
4 (8.5%)
I like the FAQ except the part over here... I'd like to enforce it as RAW in my games except...
8 (17%)
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!
26 (55.3%)
I dislike the FAQ except that one good ruling ... I'd like to throw it out except for this great quote...
3 (6.4%)
I hate the FAQ! It is an abomination of convoluted, good for nothing... My players will only use its words in hushed tones behind my back!
6 (12.8%)

Total Members Voted: 47

Author Topic: 3.5 FAQ and you  (Read 10346 times)

Offline Bard

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 179
  • Medium sized Lemure
  • Respect: +1
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #40: 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.
"Playing the first 6 levels in D&D is like watching the story intro at the beginning of an action/disaster movie: it's boring and the shorter it is, the better."

Offline ImperatorK

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2309
  • Pikatyusha.
  • Respect: +16
    • View Profile
    • Kristof Imperator YouTube Channel
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #41: September 09, 2013, 04:34:29 AM »
You can remove vote and vote again.
Magic is for weaklings.

Alucard: "*snif snif* Huh? Suddenly it reeks of hypocrisy in here. Oh, if it isn't the Catholic Church. And what's this? No little Timmy glued to your crotch. Progress!"
My YT channel - LoL gameplay

Offline Bard

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • **
  • Posts: 179
  • Medium sized Lemure
  • Respect: +1
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #42: September 09, 2013, 06:38:33 AM »
You can remove vote and vote again.

Thanks :D
"Playing the first 6 levels in D&D is like watching the story intro at the beginning of an action/disaster movie: it's boring and the shorter it is, the better."

Offline EjoThims

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ***
  • Posts: 507
  • The Ferret
  • Respect: +8
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #43: 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.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1669
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
  • Respect: +28
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #44: 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.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5754
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
  • Respect: +126
    • View Profile
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.

« Last Edit: November 15, 2015, 03:14:00 PM by SorO_Lost »
What would happen if you were to climb to what you think my ego is and jump to what your post says your IQ is?
Neutrality is harder than you think.

Offline phaedrusxy

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 10179
  • The iconic spambot
  • Respect: +86
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #46: November 15, 2015, 04:45:51 PM »
WTF... you guys have way too much free time.  :lmao
I don't pee messages into the snow often , but when I do , it's in Cyrillic with Fake Viagra.  Stay frosty my friends.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1669
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
  • Respect: +28
    • View Profile
*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"?

Offline SorO_Lost

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5754
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
  • Respect: +126
    • View Profile
*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.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2015, 10:08:02 PM by SorO_Lost »
What would happen if you were to climb to what you think my ego is and jump to what your post says your IQ is?
Neutrality is harder than you think.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1669
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
  • Respect: +28
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #49: 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?

Offline SorO_Lost

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5754
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
  • Respect: +126
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #50: 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.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2015, 01:02:39 AM by SorO_Lost »
What would happen if you were to climb to what you think my ego is and jump to what your post says your IQ is?
Neutrality is harder than you think.

Offline Gazzien

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2113
  • Science? Science.
  • Respect: +16
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #51: 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.

Offline SorO_Lost

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5754
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
  • Respect: +126
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #52: 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?
« Last Edit: November 28, 2015, 12:49:57 PM by SorO_Lost »
What would happen if you were to climb to what you think my ego is and jump to what your post says your IQ is?
Neutrality is harder than you think.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1669
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
  • Respect: +28
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #53: 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.  :-\

Offline SorO_Lost

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5754
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
  • Respect: +126
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #54: 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.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2015, 11:29:44 PM by SorO_Lost »
What would happen if you were to climb to what you think my ego is and jump to what your post says your IQ is?
Neutrality is harder than you think.

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3220
  • The dice are trying to kill me
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #55: 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? 
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.

Offline awaken_D_M_golem

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 6819
  • (un-) Amazingly Unproductive
  • Respect: +65
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #56: 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.
12000 posts , can be Rwong

Offline SorO_Lost

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 5754
  • I'll kill you before you're born.
  • Respect: +126
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #57: 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.
« Last Edit: November 30, 2015, 06:10:14 PM by SorO_Lost »
What would happen if you were to climb to what you think my ego is and jump to what your post says your IQ is?
Neutrality is harder than you think.

Offline PlzBreakMyCampaign

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 1669
  • Immune to Critical Hits as a Fairness Elemental
  • Respect: +28
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #58: 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.

Offline linklord231

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3220
  • The dice are trying to kill me
  • Respect: +47
    • View Profile
Re: 3.5 FAQ and you
« Reply #59: 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. 
« Last Edit: December 06, 2015, 05:11:37 AM by linklord231 »
I'm not arguing, I'm explaining why I'm right.