Can monks get improved natural attack?

[moritheil]

The asnwer lies with "Hinges on such things as whether feats (or maybe feat prerequisites) are 'effects.' "

That remark covers a whole lot of ground about how the word 'effects' is defined and whether feats are even ioncluded - as they would not be if "spells and effects" generally means supernatural effects, such as psionics, or the effects of spells.

Ah, so we have a categorization mix-up: I had thought that part referred only to the "Effects line" controversy.

Thanks for your time.

 

[moritheil]

Surely you are not suggesting the reverse: that only a select group can decide the "proper" way to read a rule? In other words, if I say it is true, then it must be so?

Surely not.

Now, certainly some things have a clear, objective truth. Things like gravity, the speed of light, etc. Interptreting the written word generally is NOT one of those things.

I will respectfully disagree. Interpreting the written word is generally straightforward, as, absent horrid writing, translation difficulties, or deliberate ambiguity, there either is or is not support for a given interpretation. Our problems arise from the fact that we are dealing with the exceptions on these boards.

 

[Artoomis]

Surely not.



I will respectfully disagree. Interpreting the written word is generally straightforward, as, absent horrid writing, translation difficulties, or deliberate ambiguity, there either is or is not support for a given interpretation. Our problems arise from the fact that we are dealing with the exceptions on these boards.

Try reading virtually any Supreme Court decision and see if you still say that.

 

[moritheil]

Try reading virtually any Supreme Court decision and see if you still say that.

I actually have, and did not have the kind of difficulty you seem to be implying - but that aside, those are hardly normal examples of the written word. Stop signs, newspaper headlines, and the like are probably fairer examples of "the written word" in general, and they are usually pretty clear, with virtually no ambiguity.

Now, if you want to make a case that interpreting WOTC's rules is usually not clear and objective, feel free to.

 

[Artoomis]

I actually have, and did not have the kind of difficulty you seem to be implying - but that aside, those are hardly normal examples of the written word. Stop signs, newspaper headlines, and the like are probably fairer examples of "the written word" in general, and they are usually pretty clear, with virtually no ambiguity.

Now, if you want to make a case that interpreting WOTC's rules is usually not clear and objective, feel free to.

Actually, I was referring to the way statutes are read - every similar to WOtC rules, except they are intended to be more exacting.

As for WotC example, INA and monks is an excellent example.

What on earth does "spells and effects" means? There is NO clear guidance on the core rules for this.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

If people cant agree what raw is saying, then how can raw be used as an argument? if 50% of people lets say see ina working with monks, then how can raw be used as a counter argument. Both sides are saying that raw is in favor of their view, therefore raw doesn’t apply and their is no solution or answer?

 

[Artoomis]

If people cant agree what raw is saying, then how can raw be used as an argument? if 50% of people lets say see ina working with monks, then how can raw be used as a counter argument. Both sides are saying that raw is in favor of their view, therefore raw doesn’t apply and their is no solution or answer?

No true, universal answer, correct. My point exact6ly.

Under such circumstances there may very well be two (or maybe more) correct answers if the RAW allows it by the way the RAW is written.

This is one area where this forum is of great service to players and DMs. Presenting both points of view with their arguments so that groups may decide for themselves.

 

[pawsplay]

I will respectfully disagree. Interpreting the written word is generally straightforward, as, absent horrid writing, translation difficulties, or deliberate ambiguity, there either is or is not support for a given interpretation. Our problems arise from the fact that we are dealing with the exceptions on these boards.

I would disagree. Often the only true agreement is that we all use the same words in the same way... we could agree one day, then disagree fiercely the next if it turns out my definition of one thing is not exactly the same as yours when applied to a certain context.

Only within a shared language is agreement possible. Life rarely indulges absolutes.

 

[Artoomis]

... Stop signs, newspaper headlines, and the like are probably fairer examples of "the written word" in general, and they are usually pretty clear, with virtually no ambiguity.

Actually, as it turns out, even a STOP sign presents some amiguity. A lawyer in California succesfully argues that it really does not mean STOP. More like slow wayyyy down and be safe.

Maybe that's a silly example, but I think it drives home my point.

Newspaper headlines, too, are very often ambiguous and you cannot tell what they really mean until reading the story. Of course, that's very often intentional.

 

[IcyCool]

Actually, as it turns out, even a STOP sign presents some amiguity. A lawyer in California succesfully argues that it really does not mean STOP. More like slow wayyyy down and be safe.

Link?