Official Rules [Archive] - Wizards Community

Official Rules [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Timlagor
03-03-06, 03:49 PM I'm looking for clarification on a few points. Please don't respond with opinion and speculation. I'm really looking for quotes from solid official sources.

** Does it say anywhere that the FAQ can over-rule a rulebook?
Both are official sources but I could find nothing saying that a contradiction
should be resolved in favour of the FAQ.
(Personally I'd like the FAQ relegated to 'guidance only' with the WotC-CS but
being able to ignore it when it contradicts the PHB would be a nice start)

** Are the Circle and/or Triads empowered to make rulings about game rules
outside of official documents?
The references I found were very vague and could easily have been interpreted to merely explain that the Circle were the people who released the official documents and made rulings about individual incidents and characters.

** Do the various Metagaming documents actually have any official standing?
I only found describing the Triads as the people who released them but nothing actually granting them any authority within the campaign.
(not actually very important as we'll just carry on assuming it anyway but worth clarifying in the next LGCS)

Sorry for not raising these questions in the LGCS 5.0 review period: I simply
hadn't noticed the lack of clarity.
Samwise
03-03-06, 04:19 PM ** Does it say anywhere that the FAQ can over-rule a rulebook?
Both are official sources but I could find nothing saying that a contradiction
should be resolved in favour of the FAQ.
(Personally I'd like the FAQ relegated to 'guidance only' with the WotC-CS but
being able to ignore it when it contradicts the PHB would be a nice start)

Which FAQ? The official D&D FAQ, or the FAQ provided in the LGCS?

I am pretty certain any LGCS FAQ. or related statements, over-rule the rule books. An obvious example being the polymorph-wild shape issue.
For the D&D FAQ, there are a very few entries that specifically state they are errata. Other than that, which entries do you believe contradict something in a rule book?

** Are the Circle and/or Triads empowered to make rulings about game rules
outside of official documents?
The references I found were very vague and could easily have been interpreted to merely explain that the Circle were the people who released the official documents and made rulings about individual incidents and characters.

It depends on what you mean by rulings.
If they are running a game, they have the same ability of any DM to make a decision about a rule.
Triads can not issue game rulings. However, they commonly report game rulings from the Circle.
The Circle makes some limited game rulings and changes. These almost always appear as simple announcements first, taking anywhere from a week to several months to appear in the LGCS, Dispel Confusion, or some other source.

** Do the various Metagaming documents actually have any official standing?
I only found describing the Triads as the people who released them but nothing actually granting them any authority within the campaign.
(not actually very important as we'll just carry on assuming it anyway but worth clarifying in the next LGCS)

Yes they do. They constitute "campaign documentation" for all relevant references to such.
There are however rather significant limits on what meta-organizations can offer.

At least that's my impression of all of these.
vvincent
03-07-06, 12:19 PM I'm looking for clarification on a few points. Please don't respond with opinion and speculation. I'm really looking for quotes from solid official sources.

<SNIP>

** Do the various Metagaming documents actually have any official standing?
I only found describing the Triads as the people who released them but nothing actually granting them any authority within the campaign.
(not actually very important as we'll just carry on assuming it anyway but worth clarifying in the next LGCS)

You appear to have two separate questions here.

1) Do metagaming documents have official standing?
2) Does the regional Triad have any authority beyond merely releasing said documents?

Can you clarify your questions here so I can provide you with some kind of answer?

Vernon L. Vincent
Verbobonc Triad
Winnipegger
03-09-06, 10:29 PM Hi Tim,

The purpose of the FAQ is to clarify existing rules in D&D. Thus, if the PHB says one thing and the FAQ says another, it is normally because the PHB rule is ambiguous. The FAQ doesn't usually conflict with core rules (as that's what errata is for), meaning the FAQ doesn't overrule the PHB, but merely clarifies it. A contradiction is usually solved in favor of the FAQ because the FAQ is more recent, and the FAQ being more recent means it represents the spirit of the rules. Judges are expected to follow both the letter and spirit of the rules, as said in the LGCS. But to answer your question directly, there is nothing anywhere stating which rules book takes precedence in Living Greyhawk. But in the case of the FAQ, it's not normally an issue because the FAQ clarifies ambiguous rulings (and occassionally inventing new ones, but again, this doesn't contradict the FAQ).

I find that those who claim the FAQ contradicts the PHB is merely giving a hasty conclusion without thinking the whole thing through. Before one draws that conclusion, one needs to ask whether it is indeed contradictory. Then one needs to state why it is contradictory. Also, is it *clearly* contradictory, or contradictory based on interpretation?

As for whether Circle/Triad members can make rulings about game rules, they may only do so if it does not contradict the core rules. They have made a ruling about the monk's belt and whether Weapon Focus (longbow) applies to composite longbows, but again, like the FAQ, they aren't overruling existing rules but merely clarifying them.

Those are some answers to your questions. I find that bringing up seemingly contradictory issues between the FAQ and PHB on a board like this helps to determine the true nature of its ambiguity; it would then come off as an actual contradiction and not a rant.

Hope that helps,

---
Chris

I'm looking for clarification on a few points. Please don't respond with opinion and speculation. I'm really looking for quotes from solid official sources.

** Does it say anywhere that the FAQ can over-rule a rulebook?
Both are official sources but I could find nothing saying that a contradiction
should be resolved in favour of the FAQ.
(Personally I'd like the FAQ relegated to 'guidance only' with the WotC-CS but
being able to ignore it when it contradicts the PHB would be a nice start)

** Are the Circle and/or Triads empowered to make rulings about game rules
outside of official documents?
The references I found were very vague and could easily have been interpreted to merely explain that the Circle were the people who released the official documents and made rulings about individual incidents and characters.

** Do the various Metagaming documents actually have any official standing?
I only found describing the Triads as the people who released them but nothing actually granting them any authority within the campaign.
(not actually very important as we'll just carry on assuming it anyway but worth clarifying in the next LGCS)

Sorry for not raising these questions in the LGCS 5.0 review period: I simply
hadn't noticed the lack of clarity.
kjenks
03-09-06, 11:05 PM Chris, the Main 3.5e FAQ conflicts with the PH, DMG and MM rules in a dozen points that I can think of off the top of my head. It does not just contain clarifications; it has some completely new rules and some places where it says, "The rules are wrong, use this instead."
Timlagor
03-10-06, 10:47 AM You appear to have two separate questions here.

1) Do metagaming documents have official standing?
2) Does the regional Triad have any authority beyond merely releasing said documents?

Can you clarify your questions here so I can provide you with some kind of answer?

Vernon L. Vincent
Verbobonc Triad

OK so it's two questions. I don't think I can be any clearer than you were.

The FAQ does contradict the PHB in several places. I am very well aware that it's not supposed to but it does nonetheless.

I'd like to remind you that I'm looking for Official Rules references here. I do know how the game is played. The quesitno isn't "what do the triads do?" but "what do the rules actually say they can do?"
ranger76
03-10-06, 12:44 PM Chris, the Main 3.5e FAQ conflicts with the PH, DMG and MM rules in a dozen points that I can think of off the top of my head. It does not just contain clarifications; it has some completely new rules and some places where it says, "The rules are wrong, use this instead."

Could you provide any specific examples? I couldn't find anywhere in the FAQ's where it says "The rules are wrong, use this instead.".

As others have said the FAQ's are there for rules clarification, they do not change the rules. The errata however do make changes and in the case of an errata the errata is the true rule, usually due to a typo in the original.
kjenks
03-10-06, 03:52 PM Could you provide any specific examples? I couldn't find anywhere in the FAQ's where it says "The rules are wrong, use this instead.".

Main 3.5e FAQ
===
With the rules erratum that prohibits overruns as part
of a charge, the Ride-By Attack feat is now nearly useless.
You must use the charge action to use the Ride-By Attack
feat, and that requires you to travel in a straight line
toward your target. Using the example in the Player’s
Handbook, this would appear to rather specifically mean
along a line from your entire square (or squares if riding a
horse or other mount with a space of 10 feet or greater), to
the target square. Ride-By Attack allows you to continue
moving along the straight line of the charge after your
attack. This would have to mean that at some point you
would enter the square (or squares) of the creature you
attacked. (At least I cannot conceive of any other way it
could be done). Since you cannot enter your foe’s space
unless the creature is already dead, Ride-By Attack is now
pretty much useless if you can’t also overrun the foe. Some
have suggested that you could charge in a manner that
would not bring you through the target creature’s square
(or squares). To do so, you would not be charging directly
toward the target and likely not moving by the shortest
route (also a charge requirement) or attacking it from the
first possible square (another charge requirement). In any
of these cases, you would be breaking the rules for a charge.
Am I wrong about any of this?

No, you’ve got it about right.

When using the Ride-By attack feat, you must conduct your
charge so that you move in a straight line toward the closest
square from which it is possible to attack your chosen foe, so
long as it is a square that allows you to attack and then continue
on in the straight line of the charge. You still must attack your
foe the moment you reach that square. (Although the feat
description doesn’t say so, you and your mount also must move
at least 5 feet after you make your attack to get the benefit of
the feat.) This is a special rule for charging when using the
Ride-By Attack feat. Note that the Flyby Attack feat (discussed
in the previous question) does not require you to move in a
straight line. You merely make a single move and take another
standard action at some point during that move.
===

So there are two examples there. First, the big one, that the PH rules for RBA don't work so we're supposed to use these rules instead. Second, a little one, that "you and your mount also must move at least 5 feet after you make your attack to get the benefit of the feat."

There are more examples.
ranger76
03-11-06, 11:08 AM Once again its the errata that contridicts the PH and is the offical rule. However the offical rule in the PH says "...you may move and and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again...". It doesn't say anything about overrun. Also the rules for Charging say "First you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent". Again there is no contridiction here. The person who asked the question in the FAQ assumed that to charge you had to move directly at the opponent.

From the Errata:
Attacking on a Charge
Player's Handbook, page 155
It’s not possible to overrun as part of a charge.
Delete text from the second paragraph so that it reads:
A charging character gets a +2 bonus on the Strength
check made to bull rush an opponent (see Bull Rush,
above).

Overrun
Player's Handbook, page 157
It’s not possible to overrun as part of a charge.
Delete “or as part of a charge” from the first sentence of
the first paragraph.
In the “Step 3” paragraph, delete the sentence that refers
to making the overrun as part of a charge.
Samwise
03-11-06, 02:48 PM Once again its the errata that contridicts the PH and is the offical rule. However the offical rule in the PH says "...you may move and and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again...". It doesn't say anything about overrun. Also the rules for Charging say "First you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent". Again there is no contridiction here. The person who asked the question in the FAQ assumed that to charge you had to move directly at the opponent.

I didn't assume anything.
PH pg 154:
Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly towards the designated opponent. You must have a clear path toward the designated opponent. You must have a clear path toward the oppoenent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles).

You can check the illustration for an example.
The errata for charge makes it impossible to use Ride-By Attack unless you kill the target, as you can not continue forward. (Well, you could continue 5 ft. forward if you have a lance, but you couldn't go through the target.)

You also are missing:
PH pg 99:
Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge).

As for the fact that the errata makes the feat useless, I was rather hoping it would spur R&D to do something about it, adjusting the text for Ride-By Attack in some fashion or other. It hasn't. Until they do, there is no contradiction, there is merely making a feat useless, and that was done with the errata. The FAQ merely spells out how it did so.
ranger76
03-11-06, 03:05 PM You're still missing the key point - you don't have to move directly at your opponent. You must move to the closest spot that you can attack your opponent. Looking at the diagram on pg. 154, instead of using Tordek...charge with Regdar. If Redgar was mounted he could move 3 spaces down, attack and continue moving straight down. And of course the feat text says that your opponent doesn't get the attack of opportunity.
Samwise
03-11-06, 03:20 PM I missed nothing.

You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly towards the designated opponent.

If Regdar moved straight like that, he would not be moving "directly towards" the orc. The orc is one space over, and the line of movement would never pass through his square.

Now perhaps they didn't mean to use the word "directly." If so, they could correct that with a very simple FAQ entry or errata. Since they haven't, apparently that is what they meant.
I'm not particularly thrilled that Ride-By Attack is made useless like that either. I can change it for my home campaign, I can't change it for LG.
ranger76
03-11-06, 04:00 PM You're right but then in the second paragraph it says "First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" Since the two lines in the PH contradict each other, the FAQ serves as the clarification. Although I don't really think its a contradiction, just poor choice in words, when they said directly I sure they just said that so that its clear that with a charge you can't loop around and come back for the charge.
Samwise
03-11-06, 04:16 PM They don't contradict each other.
"Closest" and "directly towards" are not mutually exclusive, but can be, and in this care are, mutually supportive, because of the peculiarities of a square grid on movement.
Look at the first example. Technically, the square to the right of where Tordek ends up is just as far away as the one he is in. But it wouldn't be "directly towards" the orc, even if it was just as close.
And the words aren't really poor, just the explanation supporting them is somewhat lacking, made worse by the inconsistency between using whole squares, the center of a square, or the corner of a square to trace effects from. (Such as it being impossible to hide behind a corner.)
ranger76
03-11-06, 08:55 PM From the LG dispel confusion 1: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgif/20050510a

Q: My DM at a recent Living Greyhawk event told me that my interpretation of the way a certain rule works in D&D is not the same as his. Why can't my region's triad or the circle issue a statement on which way the rule works?

A: In the case of a rules dispute where no suitable answer can be found, the DM's ruling during the session stands. After you play the game session, if you're unable to locate a clear interpretation of the rule in the rulebooks, use the Knowledge Base customer service resource to send in your rules inquiry. Many of the most frequent inquires wind up being published in the Dungeons & Dragons FAQ, which is an official resource for the Living Greyhawk campaign.

So there you have it, FAQ is an offical resources for LG, also in any RPGA game the ruling from the senior GM stands.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Timlagor 03-03-06, 03:49 PM	I'm looking for clarification on a few points. Please don't respond with opinion and speculation. I'm really looking for quotes from solid official sources. Does it say anywhere that the FAQ can over-rule a rulebook? Both are official sources but I could find nothing saying that a contradiction should be resolved in favour of the FAQ. (Personally I'd like the FAQ relegated to 'guidance only' with the WotC-CS but being able to ignore it when it contradicts the PHB would be a nice start) Are the Circle and/or Triads empowered to make rulings about game rules outside of official documents? The references I found were very vague and could easily have been interpreted to merely explain that the Circle were the people who released the official documents and made rulings about individual incidents and characters. ** Do the various Metagaming documents actually have any official standing? I only found describing the Triads as the people who released them but nothing actually granting them any authority within the campaign. (not actually very important as we'll just carry on assuming it anyway but worth clarifying in the next LGCS) Sorry for not raising these questions in the LGCS 5.0 review period: I simply hadn't noticed the lack of clarity.
Samwise 03-03-06, 04:19 PM	Does it say anywhere that the FAQ can over-rule a rulebook? Both are official sources but I could find nothing saying that a contradiction should be resolved in favour of the FAQ. (Personally I'd like the FAQ relegated to 'guidance only' with the WotC-CS but being able to ignore it when it contradicts the PHB would be a nice start) Which FAQ? The official D&D FAQ, or the FAQ provided in the LGCS? I am pretty certain any LGCS FAQ. or related statements, over-rule the rule books. An obvious example being the polymorph-wild shape issue. For the D&D FAQ, there are a very few entries that specifically state they are errata. Other than that, which entries do you believe contradict something in a rule book? Are the Circle and/or Triads empowered to make rulings about game rules outside of official documents? The references I found were very vague and could easily have been interpreted to merely explain that the Circle were the people who released the official documents and made rulings about individual incidents and characters. It depends on what you mean by rulings. If they are running a game, they have the same ability of any DM to make a decision about a rule. Triads can not issue game rulings. However, they commonly report game rulings from the Circle. The Circle makes some limited game rulings and changes. These almost always appear as simple announcements first, taking anywhere from a week to several months to appear in the LGCS, Dispel Confusion, or some other source. ** Do the various Metagaming documents actually have any official standing? I only found describing the Triads as the people who released them but nothing actually granting them any authority within the campaign. (not actually very important as we'll just carry on assuming it anyway but worth clarifying in the next LGCS) Yes they do. They constitute "campaign documentation" for all relevant references to such. There are however rather significant limits on what meta-organizations can offer. At least that's my impression of all of these.
vvincent 03-07-06, 12:19 PM	I'm looking for clarification on a few points. Please don't respond with opinion and speculation. I'm really looking for quotes from solid official sources. <SNIP> ** Do the various Metagaming documents actually have any official standing? I only found describing the Triads as the people who released them but nothing actually granting them any authority within the campaign. (not actually very important as we'll just carry on assuming it anyway but worth clarifying in the next LGCS) You appear to have two separate questions here. 1) Do metagaming documents have official standing? 2) Does the regional Triad have any authority beyond merely releasing said documents? Can you clarify your questions here so I can provide you with some kind of answer? Vernon L. Vincent Verbobonc Triad
Winnipegger 03-09-06, 10:29 PM	Hi Tim, The purpose of the FAQ is to clarify existing rules in D&D. Thus, if the PHB says one thing and the FAQ says another, it is normally because the PHB rule is ambiguous. The FAQ doesn't usually conflict with core rules (as that's what errata is for), meaning the FAQ doesn't overrule the PHB, but merely clarifies it. A contradiction is usually solved in favor of the FAQ because the FAQ is more recent, and the FAQ being more recent means it represents the spirit of the rules. Judges are expected to follow both the letter and spirit of the rules, as said in the LGCS. But to answer your question directly, there is nothing anywhere stating which rules book takes precedence in Living Greyhawk. But in the case of the FAQ, it's not normally an issue because the FAQ clarifies ambiguous rulings (and occassionally inventing new ones, but again, this doesn't contradict the FAQ). I find that those who claim the FAQ contradicts the PHB is merely giving a hasty conclusion without thinking the whole thing through. Before one draws that conclusion, one needs to ask whether it is indeed contradictory. Then one needs to state why it is contradictory. Also, is it clearly contradictory, or contradictory based on interpretation? As for whether Circle/Triad members can make rulings about game rules, they may only do so if it does not contradict the core rules. They have made a ruling about the monk's belt and whether Weapon Focus (longbow) applies to composite longbows, but again, like the FAQ, they aren't overruling existing rules but merely clarifying them. Those are some answers to your questions. I find that bringing up seemingly contradictory issues between the FAQ and PHB on a board like this helps to determine the true nature of its ambiguity; it would then come off as an actual contradiction and not a rant. Hope that helps, --- Chris I'm looking for clarification on a few points. Please don't respond with opinion and speculation. I'm really looking for quotes from solid official sources. Does it say anywhere that the FAQ can over-rule a rulebook? Both are official sources but I could find nothing saying that a contradiction should be resolved in favour of the FAQ. (Personally I'd like the FAQ relegated to 'guidance only' with the WotC-CS but being able to ignore it when it contradicts the PHB would be a nice start) Are the Circle and/or Triads empowered to make rulings about game rules outside of official documents? The references I found were very vague and could easily have been interpreted to merely explain that the Circle were the people who released the official documents and made rulings about individual incidents and characters. ** Do the various Metagaming documents actually have any official standing? I only found describing the Triads as the people who released them but nothing actually granting them any authority within the campaign. (not actually very important as we'll just carry on assuming it anyway but worth clarifying in the next LGCS) Sorry for not raising these questions in the LGCS 5.0 review period: I simply hadn't noticed the lack of clarity.
kjenks 03-09-06, 11:05 PM	Chris, the Main 3.5e FAQ conflicts with the PH, DMG and MM rules in a dozen points that I can think of off the top of my head. It does not just contain clarifications; it has some completely new rules and some places where it says, "The rules are wrong, use this instead."
Timlagor 03-10-06, 10:47 AM	You appear to have two separate questions here. 1) Do metagaming documents have official standing? 2) Does the regional Triad have any authority beyond merely releasing said documents? Can you clarify your questions here so I can provide you with some kind of answer? Vernon L. Vincent Verbobonc Triad OK so it's two questions. I don't think I can be any clearer than you were. The FAQ does contradict the PHB in several places. I am very well aware that it's not supposed to but it does nonetheless. I'd like to remind you that I'm looking for Official Rules references here. I do know how the game is played. The quesitno isn't "what do the triads do?" but "what do the rules actually say they can do?"
ranger76 03-10-06, 12:44 PM	Chris, the Main 3.5e FAQ conflicts with the PH, DMG and MM rules in a dozen points that I can think of off the top of my head. It does not just contain clarifications; it has some completely new rules and some places where it says, "The rules are wrong, use this instead." Could you provide any specific examples? I couldn't find anywhere in the FAQ's where it says "The rules are wrong, use this instead.". As others have said the FAQ's are there for rules clarification, they do not change the rules. The errata however do make changes and in the case of an errata the errata is the true rule, usually due to a typo in the original.
kjenks 03-10-06, 03:52 PM	Could you provide any specific examples? I couldn't find anywhere in the FAQ's where it says "The rules are wrong, use this instead.". Main 3.5e FAQ === With the rules erratum that prohibits overruns as part of a charge, the Ride-By Attack feat is now nearly useless. You must use the charge action to use the Ride-By Attack feat, and that requires you to travel in a straight line toward your target. Using the example in the Player’s Handbook, this would appear to rather specifically mean along a line from your entire square (or squares if riding a horse or other mount with a space of 10 feet or greater), to the target square. Ride-By Attack allows you to continue moving along the straight line of the charge after your attack. This would have to mean that at some point you would enter the square (or squares) of the creature you attacked. (At least I cannot conceive of any other way it could be done). Since you cannot enter your foe’s space unless the creature is already dead, Ride-By Attack is now pretty much useless if you can’t also overrun the foe. Some have suggested that you could charge in a manner that would not bring you through the target creature’s square (or squares). To do so, you would not be charging directly toward the target and likely not moving by the shortest route (also a charge requirement) or attacking it from the first possible square (another charge requirement). In any of these cases, you would be breaking the rules for a charge. Am I wrong about any of this? No, you’ve got it about right. When using the Ride-By attack feat, you must conduct your charge so that you move in a straight line toward the closest square from which it is possible to attack your chosen foe, so long as it is a square that allows you to attack and then continue on in the straight line of the charge. You still must attack your foe the moment you reach that square. (Although the feat description doesn’t say so, you and your mount also must move at least 5 feet after you make your attack to get the benefit of the feat.) This is a special rule for charging when using the Ride-By Attack feat. Note that the Flyby Attack feat (discussed in the previous question) does not require you to move in a straight line. You merely make a single move and take another standard action at some point during that move. === So there are two examples there. First, the big one, that the PH rules for RBA don't work so we're supposed to use these rules instead. Second, a little one, that "you and your mount also must move at least 5 feet after you make your attack to get the benefit of the feat." There are more examples.
ranger76 03-11-06, 11:08 AM	Once again its the errata that contridicts the PH and is the offical rule. However the offical rule in the PH says "...you may move and and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again...". It doesn't say anything about overrun. Also the rules for Charging say "First you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent". Again there is no contridiction here. The person who asked the question in the FAQ assumed that to charge you had to move directly at the opponent. From the Errata: Attacking on a Charge Player's Handbook, page 155 It’s not possible to overrun as part of a charge. Delete text from the second paragraph so that it reads: A charging character gets a +2 bonus on the Strength check made to bull rush an opponent (see Bull Rush, above). Overrun Player's Handbook, page 157 It’s not possible to overrun as part of a charge. Delete “or as part of a charge” from the first sentence of the first paragraph. In the “Step 3” paragraph, delete the sentence that refers to making the overrun as part of a charge.
Samwise 03-11-06, 02:48 PM	Once again its the errata that contridicts the PH and is the offical rule. However the offical rule in the PH says "...you may move and and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again...". It doesn't say anything about overrun. Also the rules for Charging say "First you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent". Again there is no contridiction here. The person who asked the question in the FAQ assumed that to charge you had to move directly at the opponent. I didn't assume anything. PH pg 154: Movement During a Charge: You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly towards the designated opponent. You must have a clear path toward the designated opponent. You must have a clear path toward the oppoenent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). You can check the illustration for an example. The errata for charge makes it impossible to use Ride-By Attack unless you kill the target, as you can not continue forward. (Well, you could continue 5 ft. forward if you have a lance, but you couldn't go through the target.) You also are missing: PH pg 99: Benefit: When you are mounted and use the charge action, you may move and attack as if with a standard charge and then move again (continuing the straight line of the charge). As for the fact that the errata makes the feat useless, I was rather hoping it would spur R&D to do something about it, adjusting the text for Ride-By Attack in some fashion or other. It hasn't. Until they do, there is no contradiction, there is merely making a feat useless, and that was done with the errata. The FAQ merely spells out how it did so.
ranger76 03-11-06, 03:05 PM	You're still missing the key point - you don't have to move directly at your opponent. You must move to the closest spot that you can attack your opponent. Looking at the diagram on pg. 154, instead of using Tordek...charge with Regdar. If Redgar was mounted he could move 3 spaces down, attack and continue moving straight down. And of course the feat text says that your opponent doesn't get the attack of opportunity.
Samwise 03-11-06, 03:20 PM	I missed nothing. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly towards the designated opponent. If Regdar moved straight like that, he would not be moving "directly towards" the orc. The orc is one space over, and the line of movement would never pass through his square. Now perhaps they didn't mean to use the word "directly." If so, they could correct that with a very simple FAQ entry or errata. Since they haven't, apparently that is what they meant. I'm not particularly thrilled that Ride-By Attack is made useless like that either. I can change it for my home campaign, I can't change it for LG.
ranger76 03-11-06, 04:00 PM	You're right but then in the second paragraph it says "First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent" Since the two lines in the PH contradict each other, the FAQ serves as the clarification. Although I don't really think its a contradiction, just poor choice in words, when they said directly I sure they just said that so that its clear that with a charge you can't loop around and come back for the charge.
Samwise 03-11-06, 04:16 PM	They don't contradict each other. "Closest" and "directly towards" are not mutually exclusive, but can be, and in this care are, mutually supportive, because of the peculiarities of a square grid on movement. Look at the first example. Technically, the square to the right of where Tordek ends up is just as far away as the one he is in. But it wouldn't be "directly towards" the orc, even if it was just as close. And the words aren't really poor, just the explanation supporting them is somewhat lacking, made worse by the inconsistency between using whole squares, the center of a square, or the corner of a square to trace effects from. (Such as it being impossible to hide behind a corner.)
ranger76 03-11-06, 08:55 PM	From the LG dispel confusion 1: http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=lg/lgif/20050510a Q: My DM at a recent Living Greyhawk event told me that my interpretation of the way a certain rule works in D&D is not the same as his. Why can't my region's triad or the circle issue a statement on which way the rule works? A: In the case of a rules dispute where no suitable answer can be found, the DM's ruling during the session stands. After you play the game session, if you're unable to locate a clear interpretation of the rule in the rulebooks, use the Knowledge Base customer service resource to send in your rules inquiry. Many of the most frequent inquires wind up being published in the Dungeons & Dragons FAQ, which is an official resource for the Living Greyhawk campaign. So there you have it, FAQ is an offical resources for LG, also in any RPGA game the ruling from the senior GM stands.