Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Dimwhit]

It's "official," but it's not a Primary Rules Source.

This is an important distinction.

Take, for instance, the text found in the Erratas:

The FAQ is not the PHB, and it is not the PHB Errata, and therefore it does not trump either of them.

If the FAQ publishes something that contradicts the PHB or the PHB Errata, it's wrong. End of Story.

Whatever, man. If it floats your boat, run with it. The FAQ is not a rules source at all. It clarifies the rules sources. So when there is debate/questions on the rules, the Official FAQ clears up the rule in question, and is OFFICIAL.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Whatever, man. If it floats your boat, run with it. The FAQ is not a rules source at all. It clarifies the rules sources. So when there is debate/questions on the rules, the Official FAQ clears up the rule in question, and is OFFICIAL.

I'm sorry you feel you need to be snippy.

And, contrary to your belief, the FAQ is a rules source. Read it sometime, you'll see it making up all kinds of rules.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Interesting, since the FAQ that is posted on the Wizards website is OFFICIAL game rules clarifications.

Official doesn't mean correct. We've been over this before in two different threads over the last couple of days. Often official sources contradict one another. In general, Customer Service's answers aren't worth the bandwidth that carries them. This is because depending on who you talk to you will get different answers, which may or may not reflect the RAW. The Sage is generally more dependable, but he's prone to inserting unnecessary opinion. That would be fine, except he's supposed to be clarifying the rules, not expanding upon them or editorializing. As well, he often makes calls that are demonstrably in violation of the RAW. I'm sure Hypersmurf could provide an itemized list

Errata are what I consider to be correct, because they're by definition corrections, rather than suggestions or clarifications. They supercede the primary sources deliberately, and I think we can assume that more thought and consideration goes into producing errata (and probably more dissenting opinions on what the rules ought to say) than goes into a Sage article, which is after all written by one guy. And we know how many people are right all the time. (again, nod to Hypersmurf )

In general, the printed rules trump the Sage, and errata trump printed rules. And customer service gets as much respect as a pimp in a cardigan and coke-bottle glasses.

 

[turbo]

but that's kind of irrelevent to the question of whether a feat is identical to its effect

No; it's the only relevant point: you gain and interact with feats only as you gain levels; this is the only time that feats 'do' anything, in that you don't cast a feat to get an effect out of it, as you would cast a spell to get an effect out of it.

you could stick an extra step in there and say that "the ability to sling a million fireballs each day" is the effect of the feat

Here's the thing: your interpretation introduces the extra step, by separating the feat from its effect; you give feats some kind of metaphysical presence, some kind of agency, when, game-mechanically, they're just markers to codify effects gained by leveling up.

A change in feats doesn't change the effects of feats; it just changes what abilities you have.

You're letting English mess with you. Someone could say, "yeah; my strength score gives me a +10 bonus to my melee attacks", but if he then goes on to say that his strength score actually makes his attacks, then not only is he not playing by the RAW, he's also not playing with a full deck.

It may sound strange to say in this forum, but what you're doing is, basically, magical thinking.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Sigh! You're missing the point. The point is that what everybody calls RAW is nothing more than opinion - RAW doesn't exist, it's a myth, it's something in people's minds. All you get from a reading of the rules in a book is your interpretation and understanding of what's said there. So saying 'the RAW does not support the ruling' in in a sense a non-statement. I was just clarifying that the RAW doesn't support anything, since your reading of the RAW is different to mine. Maybe I misunderstood your phrasing slightly, but the point remains.

Now, that might not be wholly relevant to this discusion, but it is relevant to a discussion on rules in general. Statements like 'According to RAW' don't really mean anything, since RAW is an opinion.

See, this is why we cite sources. It's to establish the best possible reading by reference to the rules as written. As written they may not make sense, or may run counter to that "intent" everyone's always talking about, or may be arbitrarily simplified from reality in order to make play run smoothly. But they're written in a certain way, and that can be changed if errata are issued. There's a reason why people are called "rules lawyers". Arguing rules is a lot like arguing law. If you can provide citations that show, by the letter of the law, the rules say a certain thing, then the rules say that thing.

Or maybe I just fail to understand why people read a rule, insist it's RAW while it is actually just their opinion on the text, and then use that to justify an opinion. The sage has clarified the ruling - if you don't agree, don't attempt to justify not agreeing by calling on the almighty mythical RAW. Of course, if the ruling contradicts common opinion or 'psuedo-RAW' then that's another matter entirely.

The sage has given his own opinion on the RAW. He hasn't altered the rules by this ruling (nor is it the intent that his column alter the rules, only re-explain points that are unclear). It seems clear to many people here that the Sage's opinion is not supported by the rules, and is therefore in error. Citations have been provided to explain this line of argument. This is hardly a case of "I say so, so there!"

Really, if you can't have a rules discussion without making fun of people for relying on the "almighty mythical RAW" then you should stay out of the Rules forum. The modus operandi here is to refer to the rules in order to answer questions that come up. If interpretation is necessary, there is a need to provide support from the rules to justify a particular interpretation. People like Patryn have done that in this case.

The reason why we don't agree with the sage is because he has made a ruling in contradiction to what the rules say. It's his house rule, and it's now an "official" house rule, but it doesn't change the rules. End of story.

 

[Dimwhit]

Well, this is pretty pointless at this stage, so I'll conclude by saying:

It seems clear to many people here that the Sage's opinion is not supported by the rules, and is therefore in error. Citations have been provided to explain this line of argument. This is hardly a case of "I say so, so there!"

No, interpretations of citations have been given.

If interpretation is necessary, there is a need to provide support from the rules to justify a particular interpretation. People like Patryn have done that in this case.

And some people here thing those interpretations make no sense.

The reason why we don't agree with the sage is because he has made a ruling in contradiction to what the rules say.

No he hasn't, so stop saying he has. He made a ruling that contradicts your interpretation of the rules. For some of us, not only does the ruling make perfect sense, but it was never needed in the first place because it was already in the rules.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

No; it's the only relevant point: you gain and interact with feats only as you gain levels; this is the only time that feats 'do' anything, in that you don't cast a feat to get an effect out of it, as you would cast a spell to get an effect out of it.

The irrelevent thing that I was talking about is whether you have one step or two between a feat and its effect. If you're trying to say that there are no steps, that the feat and its effect are identical, then it's irrelevent. If you're trying to say that there is at least one step, it's irrelevent. In either case, the point has no bearing on the discussion because there are either no steps or at least one step, so two steps or eight steps mean the same thing as one step. Please, please read my posts before you respond to them.

Here's the thing: your interpretation introduces the extra step, by separating the feat from its effect; you give feats some kind of metaphysical presence, some kind of agency, when, game-mechanically, they're just markers to codify effects gained by leveling up.

Game mechanically, they're well-defined.

A feat is a special feature that gives your character a new capability or improves one that he or she already has.

Note that it does not say that a feat is a new capability. It is a feature that provides a capability or improves a capability. Therefore, a feat is not an effect, but instead provides an effect.

A change in feats doesn't change the effects of feats; it just changes what abilities you have.

By changing what feats you have, yes. And the feats you have determine which abilities you have because the feats give your character those abilities.

You're letting English mess with you. Someone could say, "yeah; my strength score gives me a +10 bonus to my melee attacks", but if he then goes on to say that his strength score actually makes his attacks, then not only is he not playing by the RAW, he's also not playing with a full deck.

You've got it backwards. You're the one that's (by analogy) claiming that the strength score makes his attacks (or is his attacks, or whatever. Your analogy is murky and so I don't have much to work with here). I'm the one claiming that the strength score provides additional capability when making attacks, by bestowing a benefit to the character (specifically, a +10 unnamed bonus). You say feats are effects, I say feats provide effects. The rules back me up.

 

[Pinotage]

The reason why we don't agree with the sage is because he has made a ruling in contradiction to what the rules say. It's his house rule, and it's now an "official" house rule, but it doesn't change the rules. End of story.

See, this is the part I don't agree with. His ruling doesn't contradict any rules, his ruling contradicts your opinion of what the text is saying. When there are two opinions regarding a matter, and an official points out which is the right one, why are you still arguing that it's not?

Sorry, it's late here in the UK, and I'm off to bed. I didn't intend my post to come across as 'making fun', and I'm sorry that you took it that way.

In any event, I think all has been said and done here.

Pinotage

Edit: Looks like Dimwhit and I had the same idea.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

In any event, I think all has been said and done here.

I think we can agree at least on that. I can't imagine us squeezing any more blood from this stone...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

One ... MORE ... DROP!