Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 3054681" data-attributes="member: 2011">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.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.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="KarinsDad, post: 3054681, member: 2011"] 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. 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification