Can monks get improved natural attack?

moritheil

First Post

• Sep 16, 2006

• #111

pawsplay said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

Moon-Lancer

First Post

• Sep 16, 2006

• #112

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.

 

Last edited: Sep 16, 2006

moritheil

First Post

• Sep 16, 2006

• #113

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"

Click to expand...

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?

 

R

RigaMortus2

First Post

• Sep 16, 2006

• #114

Artoomis said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

Slightly
Tap
On
Pedal

 

Last edited: Sep 17, 2006

Question

First Post

• Sep 16, 2006

• #115

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.

 

B

Baramay

First Post

• Sep 16, 2006

• #116

Question said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

 

R

RigaMortus2

First Post

• Sep 16, 2006

• #117

Question said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

First Post

• Sep 16, 2006

• #118

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

 

R

RigaMortus2

First Post

• Sep 16, 2006

• #119

Question said:

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

Click to expand...

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

First Post

• Sep 17, 2006

• #120

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.