Can monks get improved natural attack?

[pawsplay]

Originally Posted by Artoomis

Actually, as it turns out, even a STOP sign presents some amiguity. A lawyer in California succesfully argues that it really does not mean STOP. More like slow wayyyy down and be safe.

Maybe that's a silly example, but I think it drives home my point.

Newspaper headlines, too, are very often ambiguous and you cannot tell what they really mean until reading the story. Of course, that's very often intentional.

GIANT COACH AIMS FOR NEW HIGH

has always been one of my favorites.

[Artoomis]

Originally Posted by IcyCool

Link?

Sorry - I guess I was making a point more than anything else. I did hear this story told to me as true, but it could be urban legend.

It went something like:

A lawyer, arguing a case of running a stop sign where the driver almost, but did not quite stop (per the police officer) used a ball to illustrate a point. He tossed it in the air and challenged the officer (or the court, I am not sure which) to identify when it stopped. The end result was that STOP really ended up meaning "darn near stopping, but not necessarily competely."

It's hardly a perfect example and I cannot prove it, but it was merely illustrative of a point.

[Artoomis]

So, just for fun, let's go back to the original question of this thread:

"Can monks get improved natural attack? "

The answer is painfully obvious, is it not?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It depends.

[IcyCool]

Originally Posted by Artoomis

Sorry - I guess I was making a point more than anything else. I did hear this story told to me as true, but it could be urban legend.

Made up evidence isn't terribly useful, but it sure is handy.

The description makes it sound like urban legend. How did the lawyer prove that the officer was mistaken? And if he did, the lawyer would have a heck of a lot more luck in proving fault with the officer than trying to convince a judge that "stop" doesn't mean "stop".

I think someone was pulling your leg.

[Artoomis]

Originally Posted by IcyCool

Made up evidence isn't terribly useful, but it sure is handy.

The description makes it sound like urban legend. How did the lawyer prove that the officer was mistaken? And if he did, the lawyer would have a heck of a lot more luck in proving fault with the officer than trying to convince a judge that "stop" doesn't mean "stop".

I think someone was pulling your leg.

Could be. It does not really matter. It's a fun story and ilustrates how even a simple word like "STOP" might not necessarily have a universally accepted meaning.

[moritheil]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

I would disagree. Often the only true agreement is that we all use the same words in the same way... we could agree one day, then disagree fiercely the next if it turns out my definition of one thing is not exactly the same as yours when applied to a certain context.

Only within a shared language is agreement possible. Life rarely indulges absolutes.

We have done just that. My point is that when we were doing that, we were discussing rules, and not the everyday "written word." To take the STOP sign example, it's clear to everyone that the sign says STOP. It is nothing but dissembling to argue that people don't understand STOP (aside from literacy issues.) That example of the maverick lawyer - true or not - is passed along because of its absurdity, not because it constitutes an example of the commonplace.

People have come out of the woodwork left and right with unusual examples, but I did not state that interpretation of the written word is always a nonissue - just that it is generally so in everyday situations. It's absurd to suggest that just because everyone has a favorite example of when things were not straightforward, things are never straightforward, or that that somehow proves that things are not generally straightforward.

Also note that I have not stated that unraveling the INA rules is one of those situations. I would really appreciate it if people stopped behaving as if I was the one who made that statement in this thread - if it was made, I wasn't the one to make it. (Some suggest that glass meant to state that, but I'm not so sure.)

[Cedric]

Originally Posted by IcyCool

Made up evidence isn't terribly useful, but it sure is handy.

The description makes it sound like urban legend. How did the lawyer prove that the officer was mistaken? And if he did, the lawyer would have a heck of a lot more luck in proving fault with the officer than trying to convince a judge that "stop" doesn't mean "stop".

I think someone was pulling your leg.

It is actually an Urban Legend, however, it is so common in California (and often overlooked by police officers) that the act of slowing down greatly, but not completely stopping, has become known as a "California Stop".

However, there are instances of people avoiding more severe penalties after an accident involving running a stop sign by claiming they slowed down.

Typically if you run a stop sign and cause an accident that invokes a Reckless Driving charge. People have successfully argued that down to a failure to yield or stop, because they slowed down first to acknowledge the stop sign.

[pawsplay]

To take the STOP sign example, it's clear to everyone that the sign says STOP.

"I'm sorry, officer. I thought the stop sign applied to cross traffic, not to me."

Anyway, the lawyer example isn't absurd, and it hardly matters if you think it's a real event or not, because arguments like that happen in courtrooms all the time. In real life, things are often not clear.

What does stop mean? Does it mean to completely depress your brakes, even if the car is still rocking forward? Does it mean your car is not significantly moving, even if your brake pedal isn't depressed?

But all that's a tangent. Because we're not talking about a sign that says STOP. We're talking about a sign that says "FINES DOUBLE IN CONSTRUCTION ZONE WHEN WORKERS PRESENT" and the workers are at lunch.

[moritheil]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

To take the STOP sign example, it's clear to everyone that the sign says STOP.

"I'm sorry, officer. I thought the stop sign applied to cross traffic, not to me."

Aha! That's not an example of the sign being unclear - that's an example of the context being unclear. The sign itself saying STOP is not contested - only the context. The person in your example is not saying that the sign does not say to STOP. The driver misinterpreted the conditions in which the written word appeared, not the written word itself.

Practically, the effect may seem similar, but it's an important distinction.

But all that's a tangent. Because we're not talking about a sign that says STOP.

I am.

I'm not talking about INA being clear or unclear. I'm not talking about rules in general being clear or unclear. I'm taking issue with a broad blanket statement made by Artoomis that the written word itself has no "broad, objective truth."

[pawsplay]

The written word has no broad, objective truth. A given word means whatever someone says it means.

[moritheil]

Originally Posted by pawsplay

The written word has no broad, objective truth. A given word means whatever someone says it means.

Perhaps in your understanding of the matter. However, if you say "no," and someone else interprets that "no" to mean yes, is that word not still "no" to you? Is it not still composed of the letters N and O when written out in English?

Understand that, as stated previously, I am personally disagreeing with the concept that words do not have meaning - not attempting to force this view upon others. I'm not picking a fight here, just noting my disagreement with another interpretation of a matter. This seems to have dragged out mainly because people haven't grasped that.

[Moon-Lancer]

well i think i see what Artoomis is saying.

You could argue stop to mean

Stopping at the sign were it is marked
or
Starting to stop at the sign.

this is of course disregarding any rules about the stop sign and taking it for face value as "stop" It really depends if their was a law in the county or whatnot that defined were one stops at the sign.

Two valid interpretations. Although culturally everyone with common sense should know that you stop at the sign, not starting to stop at the sign.


we are not agueing over a word like stop or no, we are argueing over the word "effect" and this word means too much to be used the way it was. Thus the ambiguity.

anyone do those fun games in high school or jr high were you have to write a manul or instructonal booklet? its hard to write something so that everyone will interprit the same. In fact sometimes we take some words for granted that others will use and interprit these words in the same manor as ourselves. such as "effect"

so wizards droped the ball and it rolled a bit (hahah) oh well. rule as you will.

[moritheil]

Clearly at this point, the subject of this little side discussion has been redefined so many times that it obviously isn't what I'm talking about, so please do not address me as if it concerns me and I owe some sort of response.

we are argueing over the word "effect"

You may be. I am not. That's been clearly stated in my previous posts.

Are you so desirous of argument that you want to start an argument over what it is that we are arguing about?

[RigaMortus2]

Originally Posted by Artoomis

Actually, as it turns out, even a STOP sign presents some amiguity. A lawyer in California succesfully argues that it really does not mean STOP. More like slow wayyyy down and be safe.

Maybe that's a silly example, but I think it drives home my point.

Newspaper headlines, too, are very often ambiguous and you cannot tell what they really mean until reading the story. Of course, that's very often intentional.

C'mon, well know what STOP really means...

Slightly
Tap
On
Pedal

[Question]

IMHO its very simple. Wizards has constantly told us that INA is a valid feat for monks. I dont see why you are argueing that its NOT a valid feat.

[Baramay]

Originally Posted by Question

IMHO its very simple. Wizards has constantly told us that INA is a valid feat for monks. I dont see why you are argueing that its NOT a valid feat.

I agree. At the same time the wording of the monk's unarmed attack has given DMs reason to feel it is not suitable for monks. So if your DM says no to the feat he has a reason why he feels that way. Either way DMs can disallow whatever feat or class they wish to.

[RigaMortus2]

Originally Posted by Question

IMHO its very simple. Wizards has constantly told us that INA is a valid feat for monks. I dont see why you are argueing that its NOT a valid feat.

May I ask who you are addressing with this comment?


For me (I have stated this before) I am not arguing it's validity. I am stating...

1) I would allow it as a DM, and I beleive my current DM allows it, I would take it as a player.
2) I am of the opinion that according to Core RAW it doesn't work
3) I beleive the FAQ RAW is either (a) clarifying (specifically that feats are effects) or (b) creating a new rule (which should be a no-no for the FAQ, only errata should be doing that).

"validity" is just another word for "official" AFAIC. And "official" can mean a couple of things. Offcial per Core RAW, or official per any and all RAW (including FAQ, errata, later WotC books such as PHB2).

[Question]

Im addressing those who are argueing about whether or not INA is allowable.

[RigaMortus2]

Originally Posted by Question

Im addressing those who are argueing about whether or not INA is allowable.

In which case I will re-iterate...

It is clearly allowable via the FAQ. What we are arguing is why the FAQ ruling is or is not correct.

[moritheil]

I'm discussing Artoomis's sweeping statement that words have no meaning. (It was made in this thread.)

Even were I to accept the ludicrous STOP sign examples people have come up with, or the poorly worded newspaper title, proving that uncertainty exists in language does not in any way prove that words contain no meaning whatsoever.

Also, before anyone tries it, just because an alien cannot understand a word does not mean that no information is there, only that he cannot process it. A blind man cannot process light, but that does not mean that light cannot contain meaning.