Bullshit in the FAQ

[SuicideChump]

At the WoTC boards I'm going to have a flame with a guy who thinks the FAQ are the fvcking Word of Our Beloved God.

I'm basically playing 3.0.
I don't give a crap to FAQ, since the rules are home-tweaked.
I quit reading the Sage Advice and similar stuff, because it didn't do any good.

I said in the boards that, according to DMG and ELH, the ECL should determine if a PC can or cannot select Epic feats. Once you get to 21th ECL, you can get Epic feats. Plain and simple. Now it seems that things have changed: according to the FAQ now is the character level which lets you select Epic feats. I think that monsters PC have already been nerfed enough, so I replied saying that I would rather follow the DMG and ELH (since the FAQ don't seem very trustworthy to me).

He answered:

Well then you will be doing yourself an injustice and playing incorrectly.

So I'm asking: are the FAQ the supreme fix? Please can you list some of the bullshit written in the FAQ?

[User3]

You're not playing 3.5e, so anything that applies to that edition isn't 'official' for your game. You can ignore all of the 3.5e FAQs and erratae all you want.

Of course, the 3.0 FAQs and erratas are then official for you. And yes, provided you're using the approprate edition the FAQ and errata are Supreme Fixes.

BUT, the FAQ can't change the actual text of a book (unless it is specifically errata in the FAQ), it can only re-write it to make it clearer. Errata is re-write, FAQ is clairification.

So, if you're playing 3.5e, the 3.5e FAQ ruling specifically references the Epic Level Handbook, and the page and sidebar which says that you base 'epicness' on ECL.

Which basically means that the FAQ contradicts the primary source, and because there isn't errata on the matter, the ELHB reigns supreme.

At least that is my reading on the matter.

[Maj]

Something like that, yeah. I don't use FAQ rulings because if the rules are really supposed to change in the manner in which the FAQ suggests, then they ought to put the change into the errata. If they don't, it makes me suspicious and disbelieving.

Besides, I don't know a person who doesn't change a rule (or five [hundred]) because it makes the game more fun for their group. If you don't want to screw monster PCs, then you're trying to make the game more fun for those players. It's not injustice to keep your players from getting screwed. It's injustice to see a rule that causes a problem in your game and use it anyway just because it's the rule. The point of the game is having fun - the only time you "play incorrectly" is if you fail to do so.

[Josh_Kablack]

1116038639[/unixtime]]If you don't want to screw monster PCs, then you're ...

..not playing correctly.

[Maj]

[SuicideChump]

1116040510[/unixtime]]

1116038639[/unixtime]]If you don't want to screw monster PCs, then you're ...

..not playing correctly.

Am I doing myself an injustice too?

No, seriously, I'd like to know how many in these boards 'play correctly' (whatever it means).
How many follow any single rule of the Manuals and splatbooks, without facing any problem at all...

[Josh_Kablack]

I play with 2 groups (with a just a little overlap).

In one group, where I'm the primary DM, we play by a ruleset known as 3-point-josh, because I've added enough houserules and such that it is as different from 3.5 as 3.5 was from 3.0. We also tend to use a rather limited set of books in that group.

In the other group, we play a lot closer to the rules-as-written, and allow more material in. However the DMs in that group are both pretty harsh (ie nerf-happy) in a lot of their rules interpretations.

[MrWaeseL]

I've never played a game with the rules as written. When I first started I didn't know all the rules, and once I did I already had some houserules for obvious stuff.

[Maj]

I've never played in a game, or heard of a game played that followed all the rules. The reason (as far as I can tell)? Rule 0 is a rule - so if something comes up that doesn't make sense, is too overpowered, etc, etc, the DM can use the rules to fix it for his/her campaign. And, as much as the rules are extensive, there's no way for them to cover everything. You are practically forced to use Rule 0.

In most of the games I've played in, the DM placed an extra boundary on Rule 0: If it won't totally destroy the game, always err in favor of not screwing the players. It's led to things like attempting to fix the monster PC problem, and divorcing flavor-text money from the wealth-by-level guideline.

[fbmf]

I have never played in a game that was entirely RAW, even back in the dark days when I played RPGA events, it is not RAW. I assume that is still the case.

The House Rules for games I DM are available on the web so they don't catch anybody off guard. Incarnadine, my fellow administrator, is the web master for the site.

Game On,
fbmf

[Count Arioch the 28th]

1116095742[/unixtime]]
In most of the games I've played in, the DM placed an extra boundary on Rule 0: If it won't totally destroy the game, always err in favor of not screwing the players. It's led to things like attempting to fix the monster PC problem, and divorcing flavor-text money from the wealth-by-level guideline.

That makes me wish I lived near you guys, every DM I've played with has the following to rule 0: It will be used in every single action, no matter how minute. And if it doesn't screw over the players somehow, then apply it until it does.