Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Lonely Tylenol]

This is a perfect demonstration of why so many people are fooled by the language: who believes the sword wields itself?--or that a feat is ever wielded???

Who said the sword wields itself? He was demonstrating the non-identity of a sword and its effect (i.e. a sword wound).

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

You meant to say 'your interpretation of the RAW doesn't support the ruling'?

The RAW is open to interpretation just like anything else. It's not the ultimate authority on rules as many people make it out to be.

Pinotage

I suppose I should bold and italicize the words "I don't think that" when making statements about my opinions on the rules, if I want to avoid snarky commentary about relativism in the future. Can you keep to the subject at hand, please, rather than trying to pick nits about my phrasing?

*edit*

Also, the RAW might not be the ultimate authority (that would be the DM, as usual), but it is the primary authority, since it's where we get the rules from in the first place. If the RAW states something, it is the rule unless it is overruled by DM fiat (which would count as a house rule) or edited by a later publication (such as errata). While there is a place for interpretation, that's simply a question of deciding what the RAW actually says, rather than deciding whether the RAW should be followed or not.

*edit II*

Still waiting for that "merge" button...

 

[turbo]

Unless you happen to know a psion with Psychic Reformation.

I don't know why it is that you think that feats described as outside of the general rules for feats determine the character of feats in general, but, since we're making stuff up, let's go all the way: a feat that 'grants' the ability to cast fireball one million times a day--each individual fireball cast is not an effect of the feat, nor is any particular manifestation of any ability gained from taking a feat an effect of the feat.

 

[turbo]

Who said the sword wields itself? He was demonstrating the non-identity of a sword and its effect (i.e. a sword wound).

The effect of a sword is not a wound--that's the point; a sword has no effects.

Prosopopoeia \Pros`o*po*p[oe]"ia\, n. [L., fr. Gr. ?; pro`swpon
a face, a person + ? to make.] (Rhet.)
A figure by which things are represented as persons, or by
which things inanimate are spoken of as animated beings;

 

[Dimwhit]

If the RAW states something, it is the rule unless it is overruled by DM fiat (which would count as a house rule) or edited by a later publication (such as errata).

So I have a question. If/when Wizards publishes this particular Sage ruling in the official FAQ, will that end the debate? Because, really, most (or much) of the FAQ is nothing more that the Sage's answers to questions.

 

[reveal]

So I have a question. If/when Wizards publishes this particular Sage ruling in the official FAQ, will that end the debate? Because, really, most (or much) of the FAQ is nothing more that the Sage's answers to questions.

No. I have tried posting answers from the FAQ in this forum before and have been told those don't count. :shrug:

 

[Dimwhit]

No. I have tried posting answers from the FAQ in this forum before and have been told those don't count. :shrug:

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

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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

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:

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

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.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I don't know why it is that you think that feats described as outside of the general rules for feats determine the character of feats in general, but, since we're making stuff up, let's go all the way: a feat that 'grants' the ability to cast fireball one million times a day--each individual fireball cast is not an effect of the feat, nor is any particular manifestation of any ability gained from taking a feat an effect of the feat.

Psychic Reformation isn't a feat. It's a power (read: spell) that allows you to change which feats you have retroactively...which is why it's relevent to your comment earlier and why I mentioned it.

And yes, each fireball would be an effect of the feat. Much as a fireball is the effect of the Fireball spell. Of course, 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, and that each fireball is a secondary effect...an effect of an effect...but that's kind of irrelevent to the question of whether a feat is identical to its effect.

Psychic reformation doesn't muck about with your fireballs. It doesn't even change your ability to cast fireballs. What it changes is which feats you possess, and in changing that, it will change the effects that those feats have on your character...one of which may be to provide you access to a million fireballs.

 

[Pinotage]

I suppose I should bold and italicize the words "I don't think that" when making statements about my opinions on the rules, if I want to avoid snarky commentary about relativism in the future. Can you keep to the subject at hand, please, rather than trying to pick nits about my phrasing?

*edit*

Also, the RAW might not be the ultimate authority (that would be the DM, as usual), but it is the primary authority, since it's where we get the rules from in the first place. If the RAW states something, it is the rule unless it is overruled by DM fiat (which would count as a house rule) or edited by a later publication (such as errata). While there is a place for interpretation, that's simply a question of deciding what the RAW actually says, rather than deciding whether the RAW should be followed or not.

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. My point in this debate was in attempting to point the above out, laying the table bare so to speak so that people realise that whatever is said here is another's opinion, or their interpretation of the rules.

Now, given that RAW is an opinion and that the Sage and other WotC rulings are provided to clarify those opinions, I think the above is relevant. There is no absolute ruleset, the RAW doesn't exist, it's merely the opinion of the reader. In that case, it shouldn't be shot down when others give an official clarification of that opinion, as is the case in this thread.

Granted, most aspects of any ruleset the majority of people agree with, in which case they may be considered some form of RAW, but in discussions like this, I don't think the RAW has anything to do with it.

Official clarifications of rules interpretations, in this case the use of INA by monks, in the core rules are good enough for me, particularly since quoting RAW is not valid in this case. In any event, I aplogise if my statements didn't come across the way I intended. Happens is RAW all the time!

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.

Pinotage