3.0 FAQ still valid [Archive] - Wizards Community

3.0 FAQ still valid [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
mvincent
12-19-06, 08:17 PM I used to assume that the 3.0 FAQ was invalid for 3.5, but after much research I concluded that it is completely valid for 3.5 unless superseded. (Note: this is all rules-lawyer stuff anyways... don't assume that it has to apply to any particular game).

The reasons:
1) None of the 3.0 FAQ clarifications were carried over into 3.5
2) Many of those clarifications were still needed and used.
3) As a general WotC rule, all 3.0 material was declared as useable in 3.5 unless superseded (i.e. invalidated in some way).
4) I confirmed this long ago with custserv

Although this is contrary to what a lot of players believe, I'm presenting my own conclusion (just to the strict rules-lawyers among us) that 3.0 clarifications still apply until shown otherwise (i.e. the onus of responsibility for disproving it would be on the poster that contests it).

Thoughts?
DarkRhystar
12-19-06, 09:25 PM I agree with your conclusion.
draconic_swine
12-19-06, 09:46 PM Sounds good to me, although you might get some odd stares (or the Internet equivalent) for using the 3.0 FAQ ;)
jaelis
12-19-06, 09:59 PM If you're being rules lawyery, then you have to ask, what do you mean by "valid"? Surely there's some things in the 3.0 faq that don't make sense any more. Are you saying those are still official rules? That can't be right.

I'd guess you're saying "Answers in the 3.0 FAQ that have not been rendered obsolete by rule changes should be treated with the same respect as 3.5 FAQ rulings." Then sure. But you'll find a lot of room to argue about what exactly has been rendered obsolete, I'm afraid. That's a judgment call in most cases.
runestar
12-19-06, 10:27 PM It still depends. Even if there is nothing in the 3.5 FAQ contradicting 3.0 material, you still have to consider the context under which it applied. Many features were revised in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5, and I believe many more are still pending an official update. Wotc is probably just waiting for a suitable supplement to come along which they can slot it into.

As such, it would be relevant only if the 3.5 incarnation of the scenario was identical to its 3.0 version. Only then would a 3.0 ruling be meaningful.
risner
12-20-06, 12:14 AM I consider 3.0 FAQ valid for anything that hasn't changed in the current PHB/DMG/MM and isn't answered in the 3.5 FAQ.
mvincent
12-20-06, 12:20 PM Surely there's some things in the 3.0 faq that don't make sense any more.Correct

Are you saying those are still official rules?No

I'd guess you're saying "Answers in the 3.0 FAQ that have not been rendered obsolete by rule changes should be treated with the same respect as 3.5 FAQ rulings." Correct.

you'll find a lot of room to argue about what exactly has been rendered obsolete, I'm afraid. That's a judgment call in most cases. Correct. In most cases it'll be pretty obvious if it doesn't apply. However, in contested cases, the contester cannot simply say "it no longer applies because it's 3.0" (as I often see). Or even "it no longer applies because some of the text has been changed between editions". They would instead be expected to make a case (rather than vise-verse).

The fact that some text has changed between editions is not enough to invalidate a ruling (indeed, much text has changed in some way between editions). Logically, the text or rules would need to be changed in some way that would invalidate the FAQ clarification in order to declare it obsolete (and even then, the 3.0 FAQ might still be useful in discerning the designer’s original intent)
tarkin
12-20-06, 02:40 PM The following statement is FALSE:

As a general WotC rule, all 3.0 material was declared as useable in 3.5 unless superseded (i.e. invalidated in some way).

There is no such rule. Instead it is entirely left up to the DM.

If you follow such a rule, then PunPun becomes possible (as the Pun Pun build requries mixing 3.0 and 3.5 stuff).

Forgotten Realms (and ONLY Forgotten Realms), suggests that it is OK to use 3.0 Forgotten Realms material unless the DM says otherwise.

As a general rule I have found it works like this:

Strict Game: DM says no to all 3.0 stuff.

Loose Game: DM says "Probably yes, but let me look it over first. Things regarding DR, Ranger, and other stuff that was radically changed will not be carried over".

Power Game: DM says "Sure, but if there is a problem, I may change my mind."

Anything Goes Game: Definitely
mvincent
12-20-06, 03:26 PM The following statement is FALSE:While I leave room for you being correct, your prior history with facts leaves me somewhat doubtful. This seems more like an opinion (which you have stated is what you normally give).

Example: the 3.5 FAQ's discussion on the fullblade seemed to imply that it still existed in 3.5 (it just needed to be updated to the new mechanics). Even the 3.5 SRD appears to contain 3.0 material (that has yet to be updated or republished in 3.5). I recall WotC giving a statement that 3.0 supplements were still good for 3.5 until superseded (assuming updates to new mechanics as needed), but I'm having trouble finding it now.

Of course, this issue is only relevant to those that doubt the authority of the 3.0 FAQ in the first place. Given the things it clears up, that does not seem like a suitable stance for rules-lawyers.
Puca
12-20-06, 03:35 PM I agree with you on the authority of the 3.0 FAQ: If it isnt obsolete due to rule changes or contradicted by a later 3.5 rule or FAQ, then it should be respected as a legitimate source.

I think though that the degree to which it will be respected as such is going to bear a direct relationship to the agreement with it.

I think that many people will recognize it when they like what it says, but when they dont, “Well, thats 3.0: it doesnt count.”

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
mvincent 12-19-06, 08:17 PM	I used to assume that the 3.0 FAQ was invalid for 3.5, but after much research I concluded that it is completely valid for 3.5 unless superseded. (Note: this is all rules-lawyer stuff anyways... don't assume that it has to apply to any particular game). The reasons: 1) None of the 3.0 FAQ clarifications were carried over into 3.5 2) Many of those clarifications were still needed and used. 3) As a general WotC rule, all 3.0 material was declared as useable in 3.5 unless superseded (i.e. invalidated in some way). 4) I confirmed this long ago with custserv Although this is contrary to what a lot of players believe, I'm presenting my own conclusion (just to the strict rules-lawyers among us) that 3.0 clarifications still apply until shown otherwise (i.e. the onus of responsibility for disproving it would be on the poster that contests it). Thoughts?
DarkRhystar 12-19-06, 09:25 PM	I agree with your conclusion.
draconic_swine 12-19-06, 09:46 PM	Sounds good to me, although you might get some odd stares (or the Internet equivalent) for using the 3.0 FAQ ;)
jaelis 12-19-06, 09:59 PM	If you're being rules lawyery, then you have to ask, what do you mean by "valid"? Surely there's some things in the 3.0 faq that don't make sense any more. Are you saying those are still official rules? That can't be right. I'd guess you're saying "Answers in the 3.0 FAQ that have not been rendered obsolete by rule changes should be treated with the same respect as 3.5 FAQ rulings." Then sure. But you'll find a lot of room to argue about what exactly has been rendered obsolete, I'm afraid. That's a judgment call in most cases.
runestar 12-19-06, 10:27 PM	It still depends. Even if there is nothing in the 3.5 FAQ contradicting 3.0 material, you still have to consider the context under which it applied. Many features were revised in the transition from 3.0 to 3.5, and I believe many more are still pending an official update. Wotc is probably just waiting for a suitable supplement to come along which they can slot it into. As such, it would be relevant only if the 3.5 incarnation of the scenario was identical to its 3.0 version. Only then would a 3.0 ruling be meaningful.
risner 12-20-06, 12:14 AM	I consider 3.0 FAQ valid for anything that hasn't changed in the current PHB/DMG/MM and isn't answered in the 3.5 FAQ.
mvincent 12-20-06, 12:20 PM	Surely there's some things in the 3.0 faq that don't make sense any more.Correct Are you saying those are still official rules?No I'd guess you're saying "Answers in the 3.0 FAQ that have not been rendered obsolete by rule changes should be treated with the same respect as 3.5 FAQ rulings." Correct. you'll find a lot of room to argue about what exactly has been rendered obsolete, I'm afraid. That's a judgment call in most cases. Correct. In most cases it'll be pretty obvious if it doesn't apply. However, in contested cases, the contester cannot simply say "it no longer applies because it's 3.0" (as I often see). Or even "it no longer applies because some of the text has been changed between editions". They would instead be expected to make a case (rather than vise-verse). The fact that some text has changed between editions is not enough to invalidate a ruling (indeed, much text has changed in some way between editions). Logically, the text or rules would need to be changed in some way that would invalidate the FAQ clarification in order to declare it obsolete (and even then, the 3.0 FAQ might still be useful in discerning the designer’s original intent)
tarkin 12-20-06, 02:40 PM	The following statement is FALSE: As a general WotC rule, all 3.0 material was declared as useable in 3.5 unless superseded (i.e. invalidated in some way). There is no such rule. Instead it is entirely left up to the DM. If you follow such a rule, then PunPun becomes possible (as the Pun Pun build requries mixing 3.0 and 3.5 stuff). Forgotten Realms (and ONLY Forgotten Realms), suggests that it is OK to use 3.0 Forgotten Realms material unless the DM says otherwise. As a general rule I have found it works like this: Strict Game: DM says no to all 3.0 stuff. Loose Game: DM says "Probably yes, but let me look it over first. Things regarding DR, Ranger, and other stuff that was radically changed will not be carried over". Power Game: DM says "Sure, but if there is a problem, I may change my mind." Anything Goes Game: Definitely
mvincent 12-20-06, 03:26 PM	The following statement is FALSE:While I leave room for you being correct, your prior history with facts leaves me somewhat doubtful. This seems more like an opinion (which you have stated is what you normally give). Example: the 3.5 FAQ's discussion on the fullblade seemed to imply that it still existed in 3.5 (it just needed to be updated to the new mechanics). Even the 3.5 SRD appears to contain 3.0 material (that has yet to be updated or republished in 3.5). I recall WotC giving a statement that 3.0 supplements were still good for 3.5 until superseded (assuming updates to new mechanics as needed), but I'm having trouble finding it now. Of course, this issue is only relevant to those that doubt the authority of the 3.0 FAQ in the first place. Given the things it clears up, that does not seem like a suitable stance for rules-lawyers.
Puca 12-20-06, 03:35 PM	I agree with you on the authority of the 3.0 FAQ: If it isnt obsolete due to rule changes or contradicted by a later 3.5 rule or FAQ, then it should be respected as a legitimate source. I think though that the degree to which it will be respected as such is going to bear a direct relationship to the agreement with it. I think that many people will recognize it when they like what it says, but when they dont, “Well, thats 3.0: it doesnt count.”