We need Rule Judges and a FAQ - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

We need Rule Judges and a FAQ

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
atanakar
Aug 25, 2008 16:29:25 It as come to my attention that alote of people come to this forum seeking specific answers to combat rules. Unfortunetly, the only source for an answer (unless I'm mistaken) are the peers. This (often) leads to long winded debates that tend to bury the actual answer in a ton of counter arguments.

Other publishers (and WOTC with Magic) have Rules Judges. I think its time D&D had the same system. Or at least a regularly updated FAQ on games rules tied to combat. The Pole Arm Gamble OA debate is a good exemple of that. How can we get an official answer from the D&D design team?
#2
RogerWilco
Aug 25, 2008 17:37:18 We used to have a Customer Service answers database, the FAQ, the Sage answers, and Errata.

In short many other places with more authority to go for such answers.

I think they're all gone the way of the Dodo with 4th Ed and D&D Insider.
#3
mudbunny
Aug 25, 2008 18:35:49 Nope, you can still ask question to the sage and errata still exist.
#4
insatium
Aug 25, 2008 20:25:19 Errata are just called 'Updates' now, at least sometimes. And...the Sage? The same guy who answered a question on how long it takes for a dwarf's beard to grow? Even CustServ in their flip-flopping 3.5 days never matched that to my knowledge.
#5
Nathreet
Aug 26, 2008 20:30:18 There is a FAQ at least, and it is quite handy. Try going to the main page => resources => 3.5 archive.

One pattern I've noticed about FAQ and sage rulings:
1. Liberal interpretations of rules to pull off some trick are usually illegal.
2. Comboing rules to pull of some trick is usually legal, assuming #1 isn't broken.

Which brings me to the 2nd handy resource: www.d20srd.org. All the rules, well categorized, and it has a search tool. Usually if you find the specific rule and read it with a bit of common sense (not merely trying to interpret it as whatever helps you the most) then you'll come to the right conclusion. When people argue and argue, they usually say "This rule says you can do it so there!" (it's just his interpretation) or "There's nothing that says you can't" (there doesn't need to be, b/c of X or Y). They may add statements like "you shouldn't try to make sense of dnd b/c it has magic in it" or some other justification for abandoning all common sense. Often all of these are worded in a less polite form than my examples. That doesn't necessarily mean the person is wrong, but I've found it to be a good hint. Anything that isn't sensible, logical discussion is often used as a substitute for such.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 atanakar Aug 25, 2008 16:29:25	It as come to my attention that alote of people come to this forum seeking specific answers to combat rules. Unfortunetly, the only source for an answer (unless I'm mistaken) are the peers. This (often) leads to long winded debates that tend to bury the actual answer in a ton of counter arguments. Other publishers (and WOTC with Magic) have Rules Judges. I think its time D&D had the same system. Or at least a regularly updated FAQ on games rules tied to combat. The Pole Arm Gamble OA debate is a good exemple of that. How can we get an official answer from the D&D design team?
#2 RogerWilco Aug 25, 2008 17:37:18	We used to have a Customer Service answers database, the FAQ, the Sage answers, and Errata. In short many other places with more authority to go for such answers. I think they're all gone the way of the Dodo with 4th Ed and D&D Insider.
#3 mudbunny Aug 25, 2008 18:35:49	Nope, you can still ask question to the sage and errata still exist.
#4 insatium Aug 25, 2008 20:25:19	Errata are just called 'Updates' now, at least sometimes. And...the Sage? The same guy who answered a question on how long it takes for a dwarf's beard to grow? Even CustServ in their flip-flopping 3.5 days never matched that to my knowledge.
#5 Nathreet Aug 26, 2008 20:30:18	There is a FAQ at least, and it is quite handy. Try going to the main page => resources => 3.5 archive. One pattern I've noticed about FAQ and sage rulings: 1. Liberal interpretations of rules to pull off some trick are usually illegal. 2. Comboing rules to pull of some trick is usually legal, assuming #1 isn't broken. Which brings me to the 2nd handy resource: www.d20srd.org. All the rules, well categorized, and it has a search tool. Usually if you find the specific rule and read it with a bit of common sense (not merely trying to interpret it as whatever helps you the most) then you'll come to the right conclusion. When people argue and argue, they usually say "This rule says you can do it so there!" (it's just his interpretation) or "There's nothing that says you can't" (there doesn't need to be, b/c of X or Y). They may add statements like "you shouldn't try to make sense of dnd b/c it has magic in it" or some other justification for abandoning all common sense. Often all of these are worded in a less polite form than my examples. That doesn't necessarily mean the person is wrong, but I've found it to be a good hint. Anything that isn't sensible, logical discussion is often used as a substitute for such.