glass said:
That isn't what Artoomis said. He said:
He is suggesting that 'other published WotC material' has any bearing on the answer, when it is quite clear (IMO) from the primary source rules that they do not.
Or alternatively, he doesn't believe that they have any bearing, and is being deliberately disingenuous by mentioning them in his summary. But I prefer to assume people are being honest if possible.
glass.
I am afraid that once more, a situation has arisen where parties will have to agree to disagree. I feel that Artoomis' summary was accurate and despite having mild but clear bias, fairly presented both sides of the discussion.
1. Core RAW only (no FAQ or other material)): Maybe allowed, maybe not. Hinges on such things as whether feats (or maybe feat prerequisites) are "effects." Really comes down to how precisely one reads the rule, how picky one is over ill-defined game terms, how precisely one assumes the class description was written and what one thinks was the original intent of the class allowing the monks's attacks to be manufactured or natural weapons for "spells and effects."
2. RAW plus other WotC published matirial (notably FAQ and PHBII). Definately allowed. There is no serious alternative argument here. The only counter-argument is very, very thin and is based upon WotC not knowing what they are doing at all. This is not a completely baseless argument as WotC has made some pretty big errors in the FAQ and in published material before, and continues to do so from time to time.
3. Game balance. Again, two views here. Whether one prohibits this on game balance grounds depends on things like whether one thinks it too strong to allow monks to boost up their attacks like this at the cost of only one feat. Note that a "splat book" feat (Superior Unarmed Strike from Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords ) has a very similar effect for a monk and if one allows that feat, and, assuming no stacking of the two feats, then this becomes moot since one would simply take that feat instead of INA. So far I have not heard anyone think that these two feats should stack together to advance the monk TWO size categories for damage.
So there you have it. At this point one should allow it, officially, unless one feels it is too strong and simply prohibits it based upon those grounds.
It is very clear to me that the first point in his summary is from the viewpoint of only allowing core RAW as valid for establishing and using rules that are addressed in the core RAW.
The second point in his summary is from the viewpoint that subsequent published material, such as the PHB2 or the FAQ, can impact the intent or function of rules published originally in the core RAW material, even where ambiguity exists.
The second contention is NOT presented from the standpoint that one MUST accept those sources as valid. It merely establishes the ruling if one CHOOSES to accept those sources as valid.
Whether or not you accept any of those sources is beyond the scope of his summary, is not addressed and is left to each person to decide for themselves.
I choose to accept those sources, you do not...but our choices are irrelevant to the summary which makes no decisions about which source material is valid, but merely presents the different viewpoints based on which source material the reader chooses to accept as valid.
Once more, none of my recent posts are in support for or against allowing INA for monks, I am discussing whether or not the posted summary is valid and fairly states the discussion at hand, regardless of any bias.
I find it to be fairly stated in accordance with the discussion to date. If you feel the summary is inadequate, I would encourage you to post your own summary that represents both sides of the discussion.
Cedric
