Can monks get improved natural attack?

moritheil said:

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

Click to expand...

Got a quote?

moritheil said:

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.

Click to expand...

Ok, Artoomis' actual statement was:

Artoomis said:

certainly some things have a clear, objective truth. Things like gravity, the speed of light, etc. Interpreting the written word generally is NOT one of those things.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but to my thinking, the fact that most major college prep and placement exams, like the SAT, have reading comprehension sections..combined with the fact that most students get mediocre scores from that section...supports the statement that "Interpretting the written word" is generally not a clear, objective truth.

As a second example...when Artoomis said, effectively, that interpretting the written word is generally not a clear, objective truth, Moritheil read that to mean that "words have no meaning" whereas I took it to mean that sometimes it is hard to read something and gain the same meaning from it that the author originally intended.

Cedric

To the extent we could all agree on the meanings of words, we would never disagree on anything. For instance, if we all agreed the same things about the phrase "orange Jell-O" then we would all agree that orange Jell-O means "the worst flavor of Jell-O" and "that flavor of Jell-O I had when my Aunt Irene was in town as a kid and we all went to Luby's." It would be impossible to disagree how much yellow Jell-O powder you could add to orange Jell-O and still have it be "orange jello." It would be impossible to debate whether that meant a particular flavor of jello that is orange, all versions of that flavor, or jello that is simply orange in color.

Because we would agree.

Cedric said:

..when Artoomis said, effectively, that interpretting the written word is generally not a clear, objective truth, Moritheil read that to mean that "words have no meaning" whereas I took it to mean that sometimes it is hard to read something and gain the same meaning from it that the author originally intended.

Cedric

Click to expand...

Exactly. That's reason it's difficult in many cases, especially the one before us on INA and Monks, to definitively state one knows what the INA/Monk rule is based upon what the Core Rules (not counting any FAQ, etc) based solely upon word found in the core rules.

On the other hand, had the Core Rules actually specifically and unambiguously stated that monks qualify for the INA feat, then I think the words would be clear.

Really, in deciding whether the words are actually ambiguous, it comes down to whether the disagreement over the meaning of words is reasonable or not which, alas, is, generally, judgment call.

Let’s look back at the questions needing to be answered to make the case that the rules is clear using ONLY core rules

Did the authors mean “effects” to mean only the effects of spells and other supernatural things?
Did the authors mean effects in a most general sense?
Did the authors mean that if allowing their monks’ attacks to be “natural weapons” would grant them the benefit of a spell (or whatever), those attacks then are considered natural weapons for getting the benefit of that spell (or whatever).
Did the authors mean that if allowing monks’ attacks to be “natural weapons” would grant them the benefit of a feat that those attacks then are considered natural weapons for satisfying the prerequisites of the feat?

All excellent questions that cannot be answered using the core rules alone, because the original language is “spells and effect” leaving us completely on our own to decide the meaning of the word “effects” in this context.

I believe that the majority of the debate on "Yes INA/No INA" can be summed up like so:

A gentleman walks up to a bar, where he wants to buy a soda. A sign on the bar, next to the bartender, says "Cash Only". The gentleman orders a Coke, and pulls out a piece of plastic to pay with. The bartender points to the "Cash Only" sign; the gentleman says "I have been assured, by that company I got this from, that this plastic is good wherever cash is accepted."

Yes INA: Bartender says, "One second - we have a card-reader; that'll be $.99".
No INA: Bartender says, "No card-reader here, greenbacks only."


Edit: if that's the case, substitute "traveler's checks" for "plastic", and you'll have the same argument

Fortain said:

I believe that the majority of the debate on "Yes INA/No INA" can be summed up like so:

A gentleman walks up to a bar, where he wants to buy a soda. A sign on the bar, next to the bartender, says "Cash Only". The gentleman orders a Coke, and pulls out a piece of plastic to pay with. The bartender points to the "Cash Only" sign; the gentleman says "I have been assured, by that company I got this from, that this plastic is good wherever cash is accepted."

Yes INA: Bartender says, "One second - we have a card-reader; that'll be $.99".
No INA: Bartender says, "No card-reader here, greenbacks only."

Click to expand...

As good as != same as. Credit cards are as good as cash anywhere with an opperational reader.

Mayhaps a better comparison would be if you had travelers checks? From what I understand they are accepted pretty much anywhere in place of cash, just as if they were cash, but they are not actually cash.

Couldn't find a version of the pic I wanted to post that was WS, so...

Fortain said:

Edit: if that's the case, substitute "traveler's checks" for "plastic", and you'll have the same argument

Click to expand...

If a place accepts cash I dont think there are many (any?) reasons why they wouldnt accept travelers checks. As far as I know they are exactly the same as cash, just in a different form.

Perhaps if it is something illegal, maybe, but then that is a special situation and perhaps it would be better to look at that as if something had claw as a prerequisite instead of natural weapon. As in, "must have a natural weapon with claws" as a special condition instead of, "must have a natural weapon".

Deset Gled said:

The problem that glass is pointing out (glass- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Primary Source rule dictates when other sources (such as the PHB2 or FAQ) can impact the function of the rules. Alternate sources cannot change something "even where ambiguity exists", but rather only where ambiguity exists.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Therefore, by including the item at all, Artoomis was tacetly suggesting that there is ambiguity. Since I contend that there is no ambiguity, the summary was subtly slanted against my position.


glass.

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...

If the 'you' in that last statement is me, then I am arguing that it is not a valid choice for (human) monks, per what is written in the PHB and MM. Wizards pronouncements have litterally no bearing on the matter (unless they come in the form of errata)


glass.