Can monks get improved natural attack?

[Artoomis]

They can't, but that doesn't matter, because I never claimed the authors intended the rules to work a certain way, only that they do work that way.

And yet may disagree with you over that, citing rules support for opposite positons as yours. Is that not pretty much the very defintion of ambiguousness in a rules set?

Appeal to popularity. We get a query here about number of sneak attacks per round about every other week, and that isn't ambiguous, is it?

Nope - but those queries get only one unambiguous answer. There is no long, unsettled discussion of what the rules state and whether it is clear or not.

Not one side or the other: the side that matches the books. Sadly they chose the other side.

Sorry, but BOTH sides match the books. Or, perhaps more accurately, NEITHER side does because "effects" is an undefined game term (or, perhaps, a game term with mutiple meanings; same difference, really). which takes us right back to my point about what was meant by the wod "effects" in this context

How magnanimous of you! Of course I am free to do that; what's more IMO I am right to do so.

Well, you are certianly free to declare yourself as correct. That, however, has no more weight that me declaring myself as correct. Neither of those declarations removes the ambiguity of the word "effects" as used in the context of the monk.

And as I have said before, 'official' is meaningless. The only rules that matter for debate is the one in the books and the one in use at any given table.

glass.

And that, my friend, is where you are mistaken, unless the debate is completely restricted to a debate on what the RAW says, counting only errata. Of what value is that, truly? If we were to argue this case before some sort of judge them, sure, this would have some actual value.

It ought to be clear by now that:

1. Some folks justify a pure RAW decision that monks can take INA, some use pure RAW to say monks cannot take INA.

2. WotC weighed in and made a decision.

End of story. All the votes are in. All the arguments have been stated. At this point, any "offical" game knows to allow INA for monks (for tournaments and such) and anyone else is free to be familiar with the arguments on both sides and rule either way.

What else is there?

 

[Pielorinho]

Moderator's Notes
I would like to remind folks of a couple things:
1) Address the argument, not the board member.
2) We explicitly allow more than one approach to the rules in this forum; please read the stickies at the top of this forum if you have questions.
3) If you believe that further discussion on an issue is no longer productive, please do not post again on the issue; this does not mean that you've "lost" the thread.

This thread is getting pretty heated, unnecessarily. Allow for differences of opinions, but do not engage in vitriol, please.

Daniel

 

[Fortain]

I've got a quick question for Glass. If WotC were to include an eratta for the PHB that states "Monks of any race may take INA, but those with just IUS can't.", would that be enough for you to agree that Monks can take INA?

 

[Legildur]

I'm pretty sure that Glass has already indicated that a monk's eligibility for INA would need to be reflected in errata for it to be considered raw rules (caveat: too lazy to troll through the thread to check). Certainly I hold the same (or at least very similar) view as Glass, and whilst I would disagree with the errata (if it were issued), I would consider that RAW.

 

[glass]

I've got a quick question for Glass. If WotC were to include an eratta for the PHB that states "Monks of any race may take INA, but those with just IUS can't.", would that be enough for you to agree that Monks can take INA?

Well, that wouldn't be a very well formed erratum, but I suppose it probably would, depending on where they inserted that text.

If they issued an erratum that said something like: 'Replace the 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", on page (whatever) of the PHB with the following; "A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects and for the prerequisites for feats and abilities that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons"', that would certainly do it.

(I got that text from the SRD so it might not exactly match the PHB, but you get the point).

That is what they should have done, according to their own rules, if they wanted monks to be able to take INA. They still could do that, then this whole debate would go away, but I'm not holding my breath!


glass.

 

[glass]

And yet may disagree with you over that, citing rules support for opposite positons as yours. Is that not pretty much the very defintion of ambiguousness in a rules set?

People can be wrong. And the very people you are appealing to obviously also thought the rules were unambiguous too, if they thought they supported their position!

Nope - but those queries get only one unambiguous answer. There is no long, unsettled discussion of what the rules state and whether it is clear or not.

I have seen people stubbornly cling to the 'one sneak attack per round' position for pages, in the face of overwhelming evidence. I guess some people just get their heads around the rules not working the way they thought.

Sorry, but BOTH sides match the books. Or, perhaps more accurately, NEITHER side does because "effects" is an undefined game term (or, perhaps, a game term with mutiple meanings; same difference, really). which takes us right back to my point about what was meant by the wod "effects" in this context

Sorry, but re-stating your position again, without backing it up again, isn't any more compelling than the umpteen previous times. Effects is not a term of art in D&D, so we can use the plain English meaning of the word, which is prefectly sufficient to get us an answer.

Well, you are certianly free to declare yourself as correct. That, however, has no more weight that me declaring myself as correct.

Straw man again. Obviously, I believe my position to be the correct one else I wouldn't have spent many posts arguing for it, but I have never suggested that my way is right just because I say so. I have posted reasoned arguments which I believe are free of logial fallacies.

And that, my friend, is where you are mistaken, unless the debate is completely restricted to a debate on what the RAW says, counting only errata. Of what value is that, truly? If we were to argue this case before some sort of judge them, sure, this would have some actual value.

The rules of this forum explicitly allow multiple approaches to the rules, but you and I are arguing about the RAW. If you think it has no value, why are you even in this debate?

End of story. All the votes are in. All the arguments have been stated. At this point, any "offical" game knows to allow INA for monks (for tournaments and such) and anyone else is free to be familiar with the arguments on both sides and rule either way.

What else is there?

Again with the declaring victory, and in bold this time too! You can't just say that the rules are ambiguous; you have to demonstrate with well-reasoned argument that there is another valid interpretation.


glass.

 

[Pielorinho]

Sorry, but re-stating your position again, without backing it up again, isn't any more compelling than the umpteen previous times.
...
Again with the declaring victory, and in bold this time too!

Moderator's Notes
glass, this sort of sarcasm is unwelcome on the forum. Do not post in this thread again.

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

... think it has no value, why are you even in this debate?

Again with the declaring victory, and in bold this time too! You can't just say that the rules are ambiguous; you have to demonstrate with well-reasoned argument that there is another valid interpretation.


glass.

I thought about not responding to this since glass has now been told not to post agina in this thread, and so it's a little unfair to sort of sneak in teh last wroid.

Nonetheless, I am NOT declaring victory:

(1) I simply stated that WotC's offical position is that monks qualify for INA.

(2) Other than that, there are arguments on both sides of the issue, certainly, and a wise DM/playing group would do well to be familiar with them all so they could rule as they wish.

I'm not sure how much more of an uncontroversial a statement I could possibly make.

I apologize to "glass" for adding in this last post since he is not allowed to respond. Sorry about that. Perhaps someone else who shares his views on the RAW will chime in and tell me how reasonable/unreasonable I am being here.

Does ANYONE disagree with statements (1) and (2) I made in this post?

(Arrrgh! That be a little token pirate talk since this be international talk like a pirate day!)

 

[BryonD]

There is no ambiguity.

Monks clearly are allowed to take INA.

 

[Legildur]

There is no ambiguity.

Monks clearly are allowed to take INA.

I would take a guess that you haven't read the preceding pages/threads on this topic