Can monks get improved natural attack?

[Deset Gled]

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.

The problem that glass is pointing out (glass- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Primary Source rule dictates when other sources (such as the PHB2 or FAQ) can impact the function of the rules. Alternate sources cannot change something "even where ambiguity exists", but rather only where ambiguity exists. In order for the FAQ ruling to be valid you have to believe that rules in the PHB are vague. This requires a looser, more "Artoomisish" reading than some people allow. If you use a stricter reading, and rule that the core rules do not allow INA for monks, then the fact that the FAQ and PHB2 say you can is irelevant.

For reference:

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.

 

[Cedric]

In order for the FAQ ruling to be valid you have to believe that rules in the PHB are vague. This requires a looser, more "Artoomisish" reading than some people allow. If you use a stricter reading, and rule that the core rules do not allow INA for monks, then the fact that the FAQ and PHB2 say you can is irelevant.

The fact that this has been discussed in three different threads THIS week alone, supports the validity that a reasonable percentage of people on these boards find the original rules in the PHB to be vague regarding this feat and whether or not Monks can take it.

If you do not feel the rule is vague and are confident you are reading it correctly and that Monk's may not take this feat, then your viewpoint falls into the category with Artoomis' first point in the summary. In that case, the FAQ and PHB2 are completely dismissed in accordance with the Primary Sources text you cited above.

If you do feel the rule is vague (which a reasonable percentage of us do and a likewise reasonable percentage of us do not), then you may choose to decide based on the text in the Core RAW only (again, Artoomis' first point in the summary) OR you may address other WotC source material to see if the question has been clarified ...and find that it has in the FAQ and PHB2 (Artoomis' second point).

However, declaring that the original rules are not vague, and that I am not allowed to look in other source material because the rules aren't vague is an attempt to impose your opinion upon my own. I am very much entitled to the right to decide for myself whether or not the rule is vague. The fact that many others agrees with me provides me with some confidence in my decision, but ultimately is an unnecessary justification, because I can decide vaguery on my own.

Again though, if you feel you can summarize BOTH viewpoints in this lengthy discussion in a more effective manner than Artoomis has, then I encourage you to do so and please share.

Cedric

 

[mvincent]

If you use a stricter reading, and rule that the core rules do not allow INA for monks, then the fact that the FAQ and PHB2 say you can is irelevant.

The FAQ serves as an extension of the rules for those that view an issue as subject to interpretation. It resolves issues that there may be two sides to. If someone does not view something as open to interpretation, then the FAQ is not for them anyway (since they have no question on the subject). However, they may encounter groups in the future that were more undecided on the subject... in which case the FAQ can at least allow them to know what to expect (especially with RPGA groups)... which is the whole purpose of having rules in the first place. If they insist on arguing against the FAQ with such groups, they may well be in for disappointment and/or needless conflict.

 

[Artoomis]

Oh, man... misundertandings abound...

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.

Okay, choice one is look at why you might allow (or not) INA for monks IF you consider Core Rule ONLY, with no consideration given to the FAQ or PHBII or any other material.

Choice two is IF you apply the RAW INCLUDING the FAQ and such things as PHB II to guide you.

Think of these items as "What if...."

The it goes like this:

What if you use only the RAW and nothing else, how might you rule?

What if you add in use the FAQ and PHBII to guide you, how might you rule?

What if you let game balance be your deciding factor, how might you rule?

Does that help?

The intent was to extremely briefly summarize all arguments, pro and con.

 

[moritheil]

Artoomis, I have no intent to offend you. My post was not a jab at the quality of your posts, but rather underlining the frequency with which they concern the INA topic.

I think so.

Would you mind explaining how those issues are addressed? I asked because I did not see them addressed in your general summary of both sides' takes on major issues.

 

[moritheil]

The fact that this has been discussed in three different threads THIS week alone, supports the validity that a reasonable percentage of people on these boards find the original rules in the PHB to be vague regarding this feat and whether or not Monks can take it.

Cedric

Are you implying that truth exists solely by democracy, and that if many people believe something is true, it must be true? I think many people in this discussion are operating with a different assumption as to the fundamental nature of truth. This might be the source of some of the conflict.

 

[mvincent]

Are you implying that truth exists solely by democracy, and that if many people believe something is true, it must be true?

Excellent point, and especially applicable for objective debates*. However, clarity, interpretability and rules intuitiveness seem like subjective issues, where consensus can have bearing.

Still, even on objective issues regarding rules, if enough people believe an actual rule is a not a rule (or vise-verse), they could effectively become correct.

*Most objective rules debates are over fairly quickly.

 

[Cedric]

Are you implying that truth exists solely by democracy, and that if many people believe something is true, it must be true? I think many people in this discussion are operating with a different assumption as to the fundamental nature of truth. This might be the source of some of the conflict.

I was only suggesting that if enough people believe something to be vague, no matter how clear any individual believes it to be, they might want to consider acknolwedging that in fact, it's vague.

Now, you could have 2 million people tell you the sky is bright green, that won't make it true. But when dealing with issues of perception and understanding, if enough people perceive or understand something to be one way...there may be some truth to it.

So in essence...while several people have said that the rule isn't vague. Several other people have said it is. That in and of itself satisfies the criteria of it being vague.

 

[Artoomis]

Artoomis, I have no intent to offend you...

I am no so easily offended

Form a previous post:

...And, since people have meticulously categorized the arguments and I have not, let me ask something - was the argument that "spells and effects" generally means supernatural effects, such as psionics, or the effects of spells, ever addressed?

and now...

Would you mind explaining how those issues are addressed? I asked because I did not see them addressed in your general summary of both sides' takes on major issues.

The answer 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 included - as they would not be if "spells and effects" generally means supernatural effects, such as psionics, or the effects of spells.

 

[Artoomis]

Are you implying that truth exists solely by democracy, and that if many people believe something is true, it must be true? I think many people in this discussion are operating with a different assumption as to the fundamental nature of truth. This might be the source of some of the conflict.

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?

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