Advice on 9th level Monk doing 6d6 damage per strike...

[KarinsDad]

Well, it's clear that if you and others refuse to accept the "official" faq and subsequent published material by Wizards as being a valid indicator of how to understand a particular rule, then there is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you.

This is called an argumentum ad vericundiam combined with a minor argumentum ad hominem. An appeal to authority followed up by a slight dig at the people you are debating with. An attempt to put yourself on the rules moral high ground followed by a backhanded attempt to knock down those not up there with you.

It is clear that WotC is now taking the stance that INA is allowed for Monks unarmed strikes. Nobody appears to be arguing that except you.

Instead, we are stating that given the core rules as written, INA is not allowed. Just like there are no immediate actions in the core rules, but they are in latter books allowed.

If the FAQ is not there to clear up situations when there is clear disagreement in the D&D community at largt over a rule interpratation, then it is of truly small value indeed.

Another argumentum ad vericundiam.

When it is merely a clarification that might be obscure, the FAQ should deal with it.

When it is obvious that there is such interpretative disagreement in the DND community, the proper approach is to first errata the material and then clarify it in the FAQ.

Just clarifying it in the FAQ is what gives the FAQ a reputation for being faulty because the clarification does not appear to match RAW for many rules literalists.

 

[Fieari]

I'd consider myself a rules literalist, and I agree with the FAQ in this instance. I don't agree with the FAQ on all instances, but in this one I do.

For the interests of being specific as to what we're arguing over, please tell me if this interpretation of your argument is correct. I think this is what you're saying, but for the interests of clarity, plase confirm.

Monks can't take INA because:
1) Monks have a natural attack for the purposes of spells and effects.
2) The term "effect" is not defined in any WotC product.
3) As such, the word is superfluous, and has no meaning. Skip over it when reading the line.
4) A feat is not a spell.
5) Thus, a monk does not qualify for INA.

 

[KarinsDad]

For the interests of being specific as to what we're arguing over, please tell me if this interpretation of your argument is correct. I think this is what you're saying, but for the interests of clarity, plase confirm.

Monks can't take INA because:
1) Monks have a natural attack for the purposes of spells and effects.
2) The term "effect" is not defined in any WotC product.
3) As such, the word is superfluous, and has no meaning. Skip over it when reading the line.
4) A feat is not a spell.
5) Thus, a monk does not qualify for INA.

My interpretation:

Monks can't take INA because:
1) Monks have a natural attack for the purposes of spells and effects.

2) The term "effect" is not explictly defined in any WotC product, but it is repeatedly used for an external influence on creatures, objects, and other effects. There are no instances of it (tmk), especially in core, being used to refer to character capabilities and abililties such as ability scores, BAB, save, feats, skills, or other class abilities with the explicit exception of Ex, Sp, and Su abilities (usually in conjection with affecting something else as opposed to the creature with the ability). It is also used for spells, magical items, environmental conditions, equipment, etc. where the PC can be affected by external situations.

3) As such, the word is important, and has meaning, even if it is not explicitly defined. It is defined by usage. Do not skip over it when reading the line.

4) A feat is not a spell or an effect.

5) Thus, a monk does not qualify for INA.

 

[Artoomis]

...Just clarifying it in the FAQ is what gives the FAQ a reputation for being faulty because the clarification does not appear to match RAW for many rules literalists.

More accurately, just clarifying it in the FAQ is what gives the FAQ a reputation for being faulty because the clarification does not appear to match RAW for many rules literalists who feel the FAQ disagrees with their own interpretation of what the RAW states.

Merely because a "rules literalist" thinks the rules say one things does not make it so. When there is a good argument on both sides, well, then FAQ to the rescue!!

This is an excellent example. When the monk class description includes "effects" does it mean literally some narrowly defined term "effects," which is not defined clearly in the ruels anyway, or does it really mean that word much more generally?

Who knows for sure? This is a archetypcical example where clarification is needed. That's what a main purpose for the FAQ, is it not?

 

[KarinsDad]

More accurately, just clarifying it in the FAQ is what gives the FAQ a reputation for being faulty because the clarification does not appear to match RAW for many rules literalists who feel the FAQ disagrees with their own interpretation of what the RAW states.

Many of us come here to these boards for thoughtful analysis of the rules. When thoughtful analysis from many people tends to indicate one pretty solid interpretation (as in the Energy Weapon debate) and the FAQ just flat out states a new rule that is not written anywhere and might disagree with that solid interpretation, then yes, it is "rules revision" as opposed to "rules clarification" and is sometimes in disagreement with what many rules literalists are reading in the rules.

Merely because a "rules literalist" thinks the rules say one things does not make it so. When there is a good argument on both sides, well, then FAQ to the rescue!!

The problem with using the FAQ is that it tends to be the opinion of a few WotC people who might not have thoughtfully analyzed the rules. This has repeatedly been evident in the FAQ.

One person at WotC states one thing and another person there states another. That's human nature.

The track record of the FAQ has not been one of crystal clarity. There have been flat out mistakes which the rules explicitly disagree with. So, letting the FAQ come to the rescue is not always the best course of action.

The FAQ (and even these message boards) should be used as a guideline. But, always ruling as per the FAQ is basically always ruling as per some other DM (in this case, the Sage).

Player: "PHB page xx says this."
DM: "I do not care. The FAQ says that and the FAQ is canon."

Instead, each DM should decide for himself based on what is reasonable and generally available to his players within the rules themselves, and not always use the FAQ as canon. The FAQ as a guideline is reasonable. The FAQ as canon is suspect. IMO.

 

[Nail]

If this arguement was only about the word "effect" in the Core Text:

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

...I'd be inclined to allow Monk to take INA.

But it's not. The Feat has a prereq., and that prereq is not satisfied by the quoted text. A prereq is not a spell or effect. It's a prerequiste.

Q: "Does a monk attack with his natural attacks?"

A: "No. The monk attacks with unarmed strikes, which are distinct from a natural attack, like Gore, Claw, Bite, etc. Incidentally, unarmed strikes may be enhanced by spells and effects that normally only affect natural weapons."

 

[Fieari]

That is, again, assuming that prerequisites are seperate from the feat somehow.

Meh. While I don't consider the FAQ canon at all, I do consider the PHB2 to be canon, and that's more than enough for me.

The logic for both sides of the INA debate seems to be open to just enough interpretation on either end that I could have gone either way, if it weren't for the PHB2, which made it rock solid for me. The RAW allows monks to take it. There's an admittably ambiguous interpretation of a statement that is confirmed by a published source, just as valid as the statement that when you lose the prerequisite for a feat, you lose the benefit of the feat. This wasn't stated outright in the core rules, but supplementary books pretty much nailed that one down.

Looks like a similar situation here to me.

 

[Cedric]

This is called an argumentum ad vericundiam combined with a minor argumentum ad hominem. An appeal to authority followed up by a slight dig at the people you are debating with. An attempt to put yourself on the rules moral high ground followed by a backhanded attempt to knock down those not up there with you.

It is clear that WotC is now taking the stance that INA is allowed for Monks unarmed strikes. Nobody appears to be arguing that except you.

Instead, we are stating that given the core rules as written, INA is not allowed. Just like there are no immediate actions in the core rules, but they are in latter books allowed.

I think you're over analyzing my remarks, so I'll rephrase. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[Artoomis]

...Instead, each DM should decide for himself based on what is reasonable and generally available to his players within the rules themselves, and not always use the FAQ as canon. The FAQ as a guideline is reasonable. The FAQ as canon is suspect. IMO.

The RULES as canon is suspect.

 

[Felon]

I've certainly seen some questionable FAQ answers. Check this out:

Q: Can Spring Attack and Charge be used together as long as all movement is in a straight line, strafing the opponent or tumbling through the occupied square?

A: No. Charging requires that you move before your attack, not after it.

Now, that strikes me as an off-the-cuff answer backed up by a pretty stupid explanation. I don't have the rules for charging memorized, but even they specifically mention that attacker must stop moving once he attacks, Spring Attack is specifically designed to allow a character to do something a character couldn't otherwise do (move after attacking). Obviously, it's not reasonable to expect the rules for a standard combat maneuver to include provisos for every feat that might affect how it works.