Hey fbmf, you might want to unfix those quote tags. The statement "It’s an error. Having levels in a prestige class won’t give you an experience penalty." is also from the FAQ.
Of course, it was from the FAQ as printed a while ago, and the Errata is the primary source document, at least, according to itself (where the primary source rule is from). And in addition to being the primary source, it is also much newer.
Why is it the Erratas make less sense than the FAQs, which already make so little sense...
The Errata is, according to itself and common sense, the place you would look for rules revisions tp the core rules.
But that's not how it is actually being handled. The Errata is reserved only for being an incomplete set of copy/paste error corrections, with the
FAQ being the place they attempt to change printed rules.
This being in flagrant disregard of the primary source rule which goes out and says that the core books beat the FAQ on just about everything.
My current theory is that they are engaging in the "moving target" method of fixing broken mechanics. That is, if you have two or more sets of different mechanics which are subject to breakage in
different ways, then you can constantly switch between mechanics sets whenever faced with a problem.
So, for example, they currently have Polymorph Rules which are directly contradictory on the matter of how many attacks you get when you change into a creature with natural weaponry, and are impossibly vague on the matter of whether your current hit points adjust to your new con score. I believe that since this has been going on for
four frickin years and seven distinct write ups of the rules, that it is entirely deliberate on their part.
For example, let's imagine that you corner Andy Collins into a conversation about Con Changes and Polymorph:
You: "Andy, my character has a Con of 8 and he turns into a Troll, what happens to his hit points?"
Andy: "Absolutely nothing, your hit points don't change when you change form, so the extra Con is just a big bonus to your Fort Saves."
and then Bob comes up and asks a similar question:
Bob: "Andy, my dwarven wizard transforms into a leopard, and his hit point don't change. But then he benefits from a Bear's Endurance spell, which pumps his Constitution modifier 'up' to +4. And now, I adjust my hit points to the new Con modifier - which is still lower than the Con Modifier I had when my hit points were originally calculated. What gives?"
Andy: "First of all, while your hit points don't change when you polymorph, your Constitution still does - as you've noticed. At that point you follow the basic rules for Constitution change and adjust your hit points right off. The Bear's Endurance is still going to raise your hit points when cast, it's just that you're starting from a lower value than you are used to."
By having the two interpretations, they can switch between them,
even in the middle of a conversation in order to make it seem like their system isn't broken to anybody they happen to be talking to.
It's not stupid - it's actively dishonest. For it to have gone on this long, there's no other possibility.
-Username17